NationStates Jolt Archive

He's talking about a thread I made in moderation because I knew what would happen if I responded to the questions the thread starter wanted.

Now he thinks that is all I do despite the very very very limited amount of posts of I have in Moderation.
Ah.

Whackjob AND paranoid. Neat.

he already confessed to it--but dont be embarassed. I never am

What did I confess to?

I confessed to nothing because there is nothing to confess to. Are you sure you won't let me have what you are smoking?

Ah.

Whackjob AND paranoid. Neat.

If ya noticed, even Kryozerkia thinks this person is even more of a whack job than I am perceived to be.

I defend free speech in totality and I dont believe private property is an excuse to oppress people--its sad you cant say the same

I defend free speech in totality and I dont believe private property is an excuse to oppress people--its sad you cant say the same
What?!?

Who the planet of Hell even MENTIONED private property?

Put your therapist on danger money, stat.

What did I confess to?

I confessed to nothing because there is nothing to confess to. Are you sure you won't let me have what you are smoking?
nope:p

If ya noticed, even Kryozerkia thinks this person is even more of a whack job than I am perceived to be.
well I guess its easy for people to see what they wanna see online

well I guess its easy for people to see what they wanna see online
As you continue to prove, post after post. Didn't someone warn you about the brown acid?

I defend free speech in totality and I dont believe private property is an excuse to oppress people--its sad you cant say the same

Where did this come from? Who said anything about Private Property?

I dont think you should come down off the porch--you arent ready to run with the Big Dogs yet

obviously cause neocons only think of rights in terms of property greed wealth and elitism:rolleyes:

Where did this come from? Who said anything about Private Property?
I asked that in post #505.

I don't think he knows he said it.

I dont think you should come down off the porch--you arent ready to run with the Big Dogs yet

obviously cause neocons only think of rights in terms of property greed wealth and elitism:rolleyes:
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. You're a "big dog" are you? Why dontcha go into Mommy's room and tell her how brave you were online today, okay, Timmy?

Seriously, I've had enough. Cheers.

I dont think you should come down off the porch--you arent ready to run with the Big Dogs yet

obviously cause neocons only think of rights in terms of property greed wealth and elitism:rolleyes:

Oh brother. I'm still trying to place it so can you help me point to where we have said anything about Private Property?

Oh brother. I'm still trying to place it so can you help me point to where we have said anything about Private Property?
don't bother... I think he's getting confused with what's posted and what the voices in his head are saying.


and Don't think he's smoking anything either. I suppose others are making sure that he stays away from open flames.

I dont think you should come down off the porch--you arent ready to run with the Big Dogs yet

obviously cause neocons only think of rights in terms of property greed wealth and elitism:rolleyes:
so yaps the Naked Mole Rat... :rolleyes:

I dont think you should come down off the porch--you arent ready to run with the Big Dogs yet

obviously cause neocons only think of rights in terms of property greed wealth and elitism:rolleyes:
Kid, you're playing with the big kids now, so I suggest you back down before you get in way over your head. Oh wait, never mind, it already happened.

And seriously? What have you been smoking? I know it isn't weed because it doesn't make you that irrational.

Honestly, private property was only really mentioned by... you! So, I guess this means only people like you think in terms of property, greed, wealth and elitism...

And as for the post property is first mentioned in?

Click here for the shocking revelation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10653285&postcount=504)

Prove that Bush was trying to get Clinton to Invade Iraq please. Again, put up or shut up.


Mmm, how's this for proof!

Letter to Clinton trying to get him to invade Iraq!! (http://www.theindyvoice.com/index.blog?entry_id=417960)

Mmm, how's this for proof!

Letter to Clinton trying to get him to invade Iraq!! (http://www.theindyvoice.com/index.blog?entry_id=417960)

Broken link. Nice evidence...

Mmm, how's this for proof!

Letter to Clinton trying to get him to invade Iraq!! (http://www.theindyvoice.com/index.blog?entry_id=417960)
My browser is either allergic to your link or it just plain doesn't exist...

Mmm, how's this for proof!

Letter to Clinton trying to get him to invade Iraq!! (http://www.theindyvoice.com/index.blog?entry_id=417960)

This in no way proves that Bush wanted Clinton to invade Iraq.

Mmm, how's this for proof!

Letter to Clinton trying to get him to invade Iraq!! (http://www.theindyvoice.com/index.blog?entry_id=417960)

While many of the people who signed the letter in your link are currently responsible for the Iraq conflict, Bush is not one of the signatories.

Also, it requires a leap to go from thinking that the 'neo-cons' want to invade Iraq to 'they blew up the WTC to give themselves an excuse'.

I find this dicument highly suspicious. It has been typed out onto the page, snd is not a photocopy or original letter that has been scanned in. Anything could have been changed in this so-called 'Document', thus I will treat it with the distrust it deserves.

It also takes a massive leap of faith to go from neo-con desires to attack Iraq to blowing up the WTC to give themselves the excuse to invade.

I find this dicument highly suspicious. It has been typed out onto the page, snd is not a photocopy or original letter that has been scanned in. Anything could have been changed in this so-called 'Document', thus I will treat it with the distrust it deserves.

It also takes a massive leap of faith to go from neo-con desires to attack Iraq to blowing up the WTC to give themselves the excuse to invade.
I agree.

I always find scans more credible for some reason...

I agree.

I always find scans more credible for some reason...

Yeah. What's a good conspiracy theory without a huge paper trail? I mean, come on! Typed up websites, blogs...yeesh. Where's the shredded paper, torn up memos, redexed pieces of paper that have been changed for 'National Security' reasons and a good old fashioned audio tape or two?

Conspiracy nuts today...no substance...

Yeah. What's a good conspiracy theory without a huge paper trail? I mean, come on! Typed up websites, blogs...yeesh. Where's the shredded paper, torn up memos, redexed pieces of paper that have been changed for 'National Security' reasons and a good old fashioned audio tape or two?

Conspiracy nuts today...no substance...
There is some substance. The paper by the professor had some credibility. The rest of it is just a bunch of tin-foil wearin' nuts trying to make us paranoid.

I agree.

I always find scans more credible for some reason...
Actually the letter is on their website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Let me say though, you're fucking retarded if you believe that the US staged the attack. I mean this administration is bad but they're not Rocky and Bullwinkle villains.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. You're a "big dog" are you? Why dontcha go into Mommy's room and tell her how brave you were online today, okay, Timmy?

Seriously, I've had enough. Cheers.
who is this

Oh brother. I'm still trying to place it so can you help me point to where we have said anything about Private Property?
you didnt have to say it you think it

so yaps the Naked Mole Rat... :rolleyes:
I may be naked but the only rats are people who file reports

Kid, you're playing with the big kids now, so I suggest you back down before you get in way over your head. Oh wait, never mind, it already happened.

And seriously? What have you been smoking? I know it isn't weed because it doesn't make you that irrational.

Honestly, private property was only really mentioned by... you! So, I guess this means only people like you think in terms of property, greed, wealth and elitism...

And as for the post property is first mentioned in?

Click here for the shocking revelation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10653285&postcount=504)
Ive been arguing politics long enuf to know how neocons think and what theyre values are

Mmm, how's this for proof!

Letter to Clinton trying to get him to invade Iraq!! (http://www.theindyvoice.com/index.blog?entry_id=417960)
thanks Brittain--I know Im right with or without links

This in no way proves that Bush wanted Clinton to invade Iraq.
which is always your answer when people provide links so why do you ask for them only to discredit them anyway cause they go against your built-in bias

While many of the people who signed the letter in your link are currently responsible for the Iraq conflict, Bush is not one of the signatories.

Also, it requires a leap to go from thinking that the 'neo-cons' want to invade Iraq to 'they blew up the WTC to give themselves an excuse'.
not a very big leap at all

you didnt have to say it you think it

John Edwards?

http://www.ticketservice.com/assets/images/john_edwards2.jpg

I find this dicument highly suspicious. It has been typed out onto the page, snd is not a photocopy or original letter that has been scanned in. Anything could have been changed in this so-called 'Document', thus I will treat it with the distrust it deserves.

It also takes a massive leap of faith to go from neo-con desires to attack Iraq to blowing up the WTC to give themselves the excuse to invade.
they didnt have to do it directly--there is something called the sin of omission

Yeah. What's a good conspiracy theory without a huge paper trail? I mean, come on! Typed up websites, blogs...yeesh. Where's the shredded paper, torn up memos, redexed pieces of paper that have been changed for 'National Security' reasons and a good old fashioned audio tape or two?

Conspiracy nuts today...no substance...
yeah because every neocon keeps a website of their own where they document all their crimes against humanity and provide all the links necessary to get them shot for treason:rolleyes:

There is some substance. The paper by the professor had some credibility. The rest of it is just a bunch of tin-foil wearin' nuts trying to make us paranoid.
where theres smoke theres fire

Actually the letter is on their website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Let me say though, you're fucking retarded if you believe that the US staged the attack. I mean this administration is bad but they're not Rocky and Bullwinkle villains.
but they DID know about it

John Edwards?

http://www.ticketservice.com/assets/images/john_edwards2.jpg
:confused:

you didnt have to say it you think it

No I don't.

which is always your answer when people provide links so why do you ask for them only to discredit them anyway cause they go against your built-in bias

Do you see Bush's name in the letter? No? Didn't think so.

but they DID know about it

If that was the Case then Clinton let it occur. It was planned under his watch after all. He did absolutely nothing to stop it. He had far more intel than Bush did... or did he? Oh wait! Didn't he place that wall so that the FBI and the CIA couldnt' share information between them as well as among the other Intelligence Agencies? By golly yes he did.

I think this thread is retarded. I hope the entirity of New York slaps you for this. I'll be the first in line.

Do you see Bush's name in the letter? No? Didn't think so.
he didnt have to sign the letter--everyone knew even people in his admin were all very aware how obsessed Bush was with finding a reason to invade Iraq since his first day in office

he didnt have to sign the letter--everyone knew even people in his admin were all very aware how obsessed Bush was with finding a reason to invade Iraq since his first day in office

:rolleyes:

If that was the Case then Clinton let it occur. It was planned under his watch after all. He did absolutely nothing to stop it. He had far more intel than Bush did... or did he? Oh wait! Didn't he place that wall so that the FBI and the CIA couldnt' share information between them as well as among the other Intelligence Agencies? By golly yes he did.
no matter how many times you try to spin it back onto Clinton 911 was still carried out and plant in 2001 after Bush ignored 77 highly specific warnings in 2001 a full year after Clinton was out of office--Bush was the one doing absolutely nothing about terrorism before 911 (not Clinton who prevented the millenial bombings) and now all Bush is doing about terrorism is making them stronger when he made us lose the war in Iraq--Clinton never wouldve got us trapped in Iraqmire ever

and Clinton didnt prevent the FBI/CIA from sharing information either--they NEVER shared info EVER in their history--that existed long before Clinton became President

:rolleyes:
Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke and many other very credible sources who youll never believe anyway because youd defend Bush to your dying breath no matter what evidence is presented to you.

But no matter how relentlessly you defend Bush I just as relentless will tear him down

no matter how many times you try to spin it back onto Clinton 911 was still carried out and plant in 2001 after Bush ignored 77 highly specific warnings in 2001 a full year after Clinton was out of office--Bush was the one doing absolutely nothing about terrorism before 911 (not Clinton who prevented the millenial bombings) and now all Bush is doing about terrorism is making them stronger when he made us lose the war in Iraq--Clinton never wouldve got us trapped in Iraqmire ever

and Clinton didnt prevent the FBI/CIA from sharing information either--they NEVER shared info EVER in their history--that existed long before Clinton became President

oh how ignorant you can be.

Remember boyo that this was being done since 1996. That puts it back onto the Clinton Administration. And yes, Clinton was responsible for the wall between the Intelligence community.

Now why don't you tell momma that you made a mess of yourself and that she needs to fix it.

Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke and many other very credible sources who youll never believe anyway because youd defend Bush to your dying breath no matter what evidence is presented to you.

Richard Clarke? The one that lied about the planes one second and told the truth the next following during the 9/11 Commission hearings?

Paul O'Neil was fired from his job so he cannot be considered credible as getting fired often causes grudges.

oh how ignorant you can be.

Remember boyo that this was being done since 1996. That puts it back onto the Clinton Administration. And yes, Clinton was responsible for the wall between the Intelligence community.

Now why don't you tell momma that you made a mess of yourself and that she needs to fix it.
FACT: AMERICANS KILLED BY FOREIGN TERRORISTS UNDER: REAGAN: 270. BUSH 1: 170, CLINTON: 35, (WHO RETALIATED BY ORDERING OSAMA'S DEATH). BUSH II 3,000+. DID NOTHING UNTIL 9/11

and intelligence community never shared info in their entire history ever--the wall was there since Day One

Its Bushs fault--GET USED TO IT

FACT: AMERICANS KILLED BY FOREIGN TERRORISTS UNDER: REAGAN: 270. BUSH 1: 170, CLINTON: 35, (WHO RETALIATED BY ORDERING OSAMA'S DEATH). BUSH II 3,000+. DID NOTHING UNTIL 9/11

and intelligence community never shared info in their entire history EVER

I guess you forgot about those deaths on the USS Cole? The US Embassy Bombings. The attack on our forces in Saudi Arabia. All taking place under....... CLINTON'S WATCH!!!!

What did Clinton do? All he did was launch a few missiles.

Its Bushs fault--GET USED TO IT

*dies of hysterical laughter*

I guess you forgot about those deaths on the USS Cole? The US Embassy Bombings. The attack on our forces in Saudi Arabia. All taking place under....... CLINTON'S WATCH!!!!

What did Clinton do? All he did was launch a few missiles.
at least he didnt Arm the terrorists the way Reagan did when he gave Iranian kidnappers weapons to hold the hostages until he was sworn in

at least he didnt Arm the terrorists the way Reagan did when he gave Iranian kidnappers weapons to hold the hostages until he was sworn in

I think that is even worse conspiracy theory than this one.

as stubbornly as you defend neocon traitors as relentlessly will I expose their treason:sniper:

the ONLY way your gonna win this debate is if you KILL ME

Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke and many other very credible sources who youll never believe anyway because youd defend Bush to your dying breath no matter what evidence is presented to you.

But no matter how relentlessly you defend Bush I just as relentless will tear him down

Too bad we couldn't clone you and let you vote in 2004! :D

(9/11 was an accident just like the world is flat.)

as stubbornly as you defend neocon traitors as relentlessly will I expose their treason:sniper:

the ONLY way your gonna win this debate is if you KILL ME

*sighs*

I do not know why I am wasting posts on you. I guess I'm just one of those that likes to help people. I can see that you have been brainwashed and don't want to look at any facts that goes against your pre-conceived notions of how the world really works.

Too bad we couldn't clone you and let you vote in 2004! :D

(9/11 was an accident just like the world is flat.)
theres no such thing as coincidences

theres no such thing as coincidences

Actually, the proper phrase is there's not such thing as luck.

Actually, the proper phrase is there's not such thing as luck.
the first time we agree

Originally Posted by MustaphaMond516
at least he didnt Arm the terrorists the way Reagan did when he gave Iranian kidnappers weapons to hold the hostages until he was sworn in

I think that is even worse conspiracy theory than this one.

Ahem, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra

"The Reagan Administration calculated that by selling arms to Iran, that nation would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon to release their hostages. Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War and could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. Selling these arms generated large amounts of cash. Since Congress had not authorized this activity, disposing of the cash led to the second half of the plan.

In January of 1986, the administration approved a plan proposed by Robert McFarlane employee Michael Ledeen, whereby an intermediary would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages, with proceeds made available to the Contras. At first, the Iranians had refused the weapons from Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian intermediary, when both Oliver North and Ghorbanifar created a 370% markup. The arms were eventually sold - in February, 1000 BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided) missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November 1986, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts. The U.S. diverted these proceeds to the Contras, right-wing guerrillas engaged in an insurgency against the Socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Both the sale of weapons to Iran and the funding of the Contras violated stated administration policy and legislation passed by the Congress.

Hezbollah proceeded to take more hostages after they had released old ones, and failing to produce any meaningful results, the arms-for-hostages program was cancelled later that same year."

I'm not out to be a knight in shining armor to MustaphaMond516, but he has some good points, and you are having Bushian knee-jerk reactions to what really happened. Didn't you also say that MustaphaMond516 has "pre-conceived notions" of how the world works? I bet you think the Russians just gleefully removed their nuclear weapons from Cuba in '62 too, huh?

How old are you again?

theres no such thing as coincidences

I agree with you.

HAHAHA! Oh god. You really do not know your history don't you?

You said: "at least he didnt Arm the terrorists the way Reagan did when he gave Iranian kidnappers weapons to hold the hostages until he was sworn in"

This implies that you were talking about the Iranian Hostage Crisis that took place in 1979 and lasted for 400 days. The Presidential election took place in 1980 and when Reagan was sworn in, the hostages were released.

Iran Contra took place AFTER Reagan was already in office which was AFTER Iran let the hostages go.

Iran-Contra happened long after the Hostages were released from the Embassy in Tehran.

once Bush starts Armaggedon your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain

once Bush starts Armaggedon your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain

Ahh the nipple crippler. Its a sure sign of simple despiration.

Your just mad because I wacked you upside the head with history.

HAHAHA! Oh god. You really do not know your history don't you?

You said: "at least he didnt Arm the terrorists the way Reagan did when he gave Iranian kidnappers weapons to hold the hostages until he was sworn in"

This implies that you were talking about the Iranian Hostage Crisis that took place in 1979 and lasted for 400 days. The Presidential election took place in 1980 and when Reagan was sworn in, the hostages were released.

Iran Contra took place AFTER Reagan was already in office which was AFTER Iran let the hostages go.

Iran-Contra happened long after the Hostages were released from the Embassy in Tehran.

There are 2 "incursions" that Reagan had with Iran; first there was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_hostage_crisis

"The Iran hostage crisis was a 444-day period during which student proxies of the new Iranian regime held hostage 66 diplomats and citizens of the United States, which lasted from November 4, 1979 until January 20, 1981. It is believed by many to have caused President Jimmy Carter of the United States to lose his re-election attempt, and punctuated the first Islamic revolution of modern times. Various allegations concerning a deal between the Reagan kitchen cabinet and Iran in order to delay the release of the hostages have been made over the years, although Senate and House investigations in the 1990s concerning this October surprise conspiracy, many of the principal players in this alleged conspiracy including John Tower who chaired one of the congressional hearings have had mysterious deaths, which in effect make it impossible to determine the truth of what may have actually happened. In any case, the hostages were released twenty minutes after Reagan's inaugural address. And also French, Russian, and Israeli intelligence reports have surfaced confirming such a deal did actually take place. In addition, in April 1981, a formal treaty was signed between the US and Iran (called the Algiers Treaty) in which the US agreed not to intefere politically or militarily in Iranian affairs nor allow the hostges to take any legal action against the Iranian government."

Notice here that the hostages were freed on the same day that Reagan became president.

Then there's Iran-Contra which I've already detailed.

Now if you think that the Iranians said "hey, Reagan's president now, let's release the hostages", then your intellect is open for discussion.

*snip*

I'm sure that this intelligence is actually a matter of public record so would you care to provide me with the links please?

I'm sure that this intelligence is actually a matter of public record so would you care to provide me with the links please?

You know, I'm not your schoolteacher or your college professor, so I'm not doing your research for you. Put down the pot, get off your ass turn off the television and use the FOIA to your benefit and find the info. Try the National Archives.

Oh, wait:

Various allegations concerning a deal between the Reagan kitchen cabinet and Iran in order to delay the release of the hostages have been made over the years, although Senate and House investigations in the 1990s concerning this October surprise conspiracy, many of the principal players in this alleged conspiracy including John Tower who chaired one of the congressional hearings have had mysterious deaths, which in effect make it impossible to determine the truth of what may have actually happened.

COINCIDENCE! The truth will never be known due to "mysterious" deaths. Oh, but it could also be released and censored (a la COINTELPRO)-- that does happen, you know.

So in keeping with your maturity level, :upyours:

You know, I'm not your schoolteacher or your college professor, so I'm not doing your research for you. Put down the pot, get off your ass turn off the television and use the FOIA to your benefit and find the info. Try the National Archives.

Oh, wait:

Various allegations concerning a deal between the Reagan kitchen cabinet and Iran in order to delay the release of the hostages have been made over the years, although Senate and House investigations in the 1990s concerning this October surprise conspiracy, many of the principal players in this alleged conspiracy including John Tower who chaired one of the congressional hearings have had mysterious deaths, which in effect make it impossible to determine the truth of what may have actually happened.

COINCIDENCE! The truth will never be known due to "mysterious" deaths. Oh, but it could also be released and censored (a la COINTELPRO)-- that does happen, you know.

Your the one that provided a link stating it. Now I asked you to provide the links to the intelligence reports since they should be public record now that they have allegedly surfaced. Until you actually provide the link for the intelligence, what you posted means nothing. Your the one that made the assertion and have been called on it to back it up. The Burden of proof is on you and not on me.

So in keeping with your maturity level, :upyours:

That smiley shows your lack of maturity. Not to mention intelligence.

Frankly, I think it's complete bull that people are saying it was an "inside job." Sure, I think Bush knew about it, just like I think FDR knew about the imminent bombing of a Pacific military base (such as, say, Pearl Harbor). I think they both allowed their respective attacks to occur because they wanted into a war that they could not otherwise acquire support for. The difference is that FDR wanted in for a good reason--stopping Hitler before he took over all of Europe. Bush wanted in for Eru knows what reason, probably so he could gain support for the next election and take us out of another dozen international treaties.

There's my two cents.

Ive been arguing politics long enuf to know how neocons think and what theyre values are
Too bad you don't know proper spelling and grammar too. Try focusing on the tools that make your argument stronger.

he didnt have to sign the letter--everyone knew even people in his admin were all very aware how obsessed Bush was with finding a reason to invade Iraq since his first day in office
Even if he was hell bent on invading Iraq in order to finish daddy's work, it still doesn't mean that he signed the letter. A signature means he approves. No signature presence doesn't automatically equate approval, simply on the grounds that he did want to.

no matter how many times you try to spin it back onto Clinton 911 was still carried out and plant in 2001 after Bush ignored 77 highly specific warnings in 2001 a full year after Clinton was out of office--Bush was the one doing absolutely nothing about terrorism before 911 (not Clinton who prevented the millenial bombings) and now all Bush is doing about terrorism is making them stronger when he made us lose the war in Iraq--Clinton never wouldve got us trapped in Iraqmire ever

and Clinton didnt prevent the FBI/CIA from sharing information either--they NEVER shared info EVER in their history--that existed long before Clinton became President
And no Iraq quagmire? Then why did the Clinton administration conduct various air strikes throughout the Clinton years? This sounds like the years that preceeded the Vietnam War in which the US was assisting France in Indochina.

I guess you forgot about those deaths on the USS Cole? The US Embassy Bombings. The attack on our forces in Saudi Arabia. All taking place under....... CLINTON'S WATCH!!!!

What did Clinton do? All he did was launch a few missiles.
FACT: AMERICANS KILLED BY FOREIGN TERRORISTS UNDER: REAGAN: 270. BUSH 1: 170, CLINTON: 35, (WHO RETALIATED BY ORDERING OSAMA'S DEATH). BUSH II 3,000+. DID NOTHING UNTIL 9/11

and intelligence community never shared info in their entire history ever--the wall was there since Day One
Oh and what about domestic statistics? You know... number of Americans killed by Americans under each administration's watch.

Oh and what about the number of people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing? Or are Americans not considered terrorists?

Its Bushs fault--GET USED TO IT
As much as I hate the Bush administration, I still find it a little hard to believe that he'd sink that low.

Even if he ignored intelligence, I doubt that the Bush administration directly controlled the events.

as stubbornly as you defend neocon traitors as relentlessly will I expose their treason:sniper:

the ONLY way your gonna win this debate is if you KILL ME
Whatever little maturity you had just went down the drain.

And the only way that you'll actually win this debate is if you provide us with credible evidence beyond the (insert cheesey dramatic music here) LETTER.

So in keeping with your maturity level, :upyours:
I find this ironic, considering you're siding with the only other incredibly immature person in this thread.

*snip*

Well said Kryozerkia. Well said indeed.

It won't do much good as I'm sure you know but it was still well said. Now if i could only get those links to the so-called "intelligence" that has surfaced about this deal I keep hearing about.

Well said Kryozerkia. Well said indeed.

It won't do much good as I'm sure you know but it was still well said. Now if i could only get those links to the so-called "intelligence" that has surfaced about this deal I keep hearing about.
I concede that I am sceptical as to the 'whole' story, but, I find it remarkably hard to believe that Bush and his cronies, as corrupt as they are, would actually plan such an attack.

I too would like to see this 'intelligence' as well. That is, if it exists.

Hmm, according to the BBC, several of the hijacks are alive, though. Sounds like a rather large problem for a story that says they crashed into a building that collapsed violently. Just some food for thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Hmm, according to the BBC, several of the hijacks are alive, though. Sounds like a rather large problem for a story that says they crashed into a building that collapsed violently. Just some food for thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
Who says that they didn't use auto pilot and parachute out?

(just adding fuel; I don't believe it. I'm just suggesting.)

Who says that identities were't stolen?

Who says that identities were't stolen?
So many unanswered questions and not enough creatvity in the conspiracy theories... :)

So many unanswered questions and not enough creatvity in the conspiracy theories... :)

I think Kraft did it. With help from the Mongolian Government.

I think Kraft did it. With help from the Mongolian Government.
But... but... that'd mean that Ghangis Khan would have to rise up from the graqve. You don't think that necromancers had a part in this, do you?

Even if he was hell bent on invading Iraq in order to finish daddy's work, it still doesn't mean that he signed the letter. A signature means he approves. No signature presence doesn't automatically equate approval, simply on the grounds that he did want to.
its widely known how obsessed Bush was with attacking Iraq prior to 911 he didnt need to sign any letters to prove it

And no Iraq quagmire? Then why did the Clinton administration conduct various air strikes throughout the Clinton years? This sounds like the years that preceeded the Vietnam War in which the US was assisting France in Indochina.
Clintons airstrikes utterly disarmed Iraq true which made Bushs invasion total overkill

Oh and what about the number of people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing? Or are Americans not considered terrorists?
But Clinton didnt use the Oklahoma bombings as an excuse to invade another country to steal their oil and enrich treasonous corporations like Halliburton

As much as I hate the Bush administration, I still find it a little hard to believe that he'd sink that low.

Even if he ignored intelligence, I doubt that the Bush administration directly controlled the events.
I may agree with you here however he certainly wasted no time in exploiting the hell out of it with Rummy and Cheney hysterically pointing fingers at Iraq almost immediately after the attack based upon zero evidence--also Bushs ignoring intelligence makes him at least guilty of criminal negligence

Well said Kryozerkia. Well said indeed.

It won't do much good as I'm sure you know but it was still well said. Now if i could only get those links to the so-called "intelligence" that has surfaced about this deal I keep hearing about.
do your own research Cornie

do your own research Cornie

Actually he has no need to. You have made these spurious accusations, and as such, much like the Prosecution at a trial, you have the burden of proof. You must come up with evidence to present to us, not the other way around.

So many unanswered questions and not enough creatvity in the conspiracy theories... :)
conspiracy theories are all people have left when they are stuck with such a dishonest govt as ours

I think Kraft did it. With help from the Mongolian Government.
Kraft cheese?:confused:

I watched that movie it was very good, but sometimes seemed alittle far-fetched.

conspiracy theories are all people have left when they are stuck with such a dishonest govt as ours

Oh brother. This guy is a loon. Conspiracy Theories have been around for centuries my friend. Not all of them dealing with dishonest governments (is there any other kind?)

I think that 9-11 was tragic, but Bush is going about this all wrong.

First off, he is attacking the wrong country, after the UN decided that there were no bombs there. Why? I'm not sure that anyone but he and his accosiates know.

Actually he has no need to. You have made these spurious accusations, and as such, much like the Prosecution at a trial, you have the burden of proof. You must come up with evidence to present to us, not the other way around.
Brattain gave him a letter which he dissed out of hand

theres a passage somewhere in the Bible that tells people not to contine throwing their pearls before swine which ruffly translates into biast partisans will discredit any links provided anyway

Brattain gave him a letter which he dissed out of hand

theres a passage somewhere in the Bible that tells people not to contine throwing their pearls before swine which ruffly translates into biast partisans will discredit any links provided anyway

I wouldn't start throwing bible verses out at this moment in time. Besides, that wasn't what we were talking about anyway. I guess you really don't pay attention. What he was referring to Mustapha is the fact that the intelligence links are not my responsibility. They are the responsibility of the poster who got challenged on it.

Therefor, the Intelligence Links are not my responsibility.

There are 2 "incursions" that Reagan had with Iran; first there was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_hostage_crisis

"The Iran hostage crisis was a 444-day period during which student proxies of the new Iranian regime held hostage 66 diplomats and citizens of the United States, which lasted from November 4, 1979 until January 20, 1981. It is believed by many to have caused President Jimmy Carter of the United States to lose his re-election attempt, and punctuated the first Islamic revolution of modern times. Various allegations concerning a deal between the Reagan kitchen cabinet and Iran in order to delay the release of the hostages have been made over the years, although Senate and House investigations in the 1990s concerning this October surprise conspiracy, many of the principal players in this alleged conspiracy including John Tower who chaired one of the congressional hearings have had mysterious deaths, which in effect make it impossible to determine the truth of what may have actually happened. In any case, the hostages were released twenty minutes after Reagan's inaugural address. And also French, Russian, and Israeli intelligence reports have surfaced confirming such a deal did actually take place. In addition, in April 1981, a formal treaty was signed between the US and Iran (called the Algiers Treaty) in which the US agreed not to intefere politically or militarily in Iranian affairs nor allow the hostges to take any legal action against the Iranian government."

Notice here that the hostages were freed on the same day that Reagan became president.

Then there's Iran-Contra which I've already detailed.

Now if you think that the Iranians said "hey, Reagan's president now, let's release the hostages", then your intellect is open for discussion.
sigh

i hate to come to the defense of a president i despise but i googled "the algiers treaty" and came up only with a treaty signed in 1975. i googled "treaty iran united states 1981" and came up with nothing.

NO. ronald regan did not make a deal with the iranians to hold the hostages until he was sworn in. that was their own idea which they did because they wanted to stick it to jimmy carter.

iran-contra was a scandal that involved some hostages held in lebanon by pro-iranian groups. ronald reagan sold arms to iiran, in violation of US law, in order to get irans cooperation in releasing these hostages in lebanon. he then authorized the use of the profits from this sale to fund the anti-government rebels in nicaragua who were known as the contras. also in direct violation of law.

Ya just like in court, the prosector has burden of proof.

Ya just like in court, the prosector has burden of proof.
and just like in court saying "Clinton did it too" isnt a Defense either

and just like in court saying "Clinton did it too" isnt a Defense either

Just provide the links please.

Just provide the links please.

Ya...we'll analyze it with our knowledge and make concessions as needed.

Who says that identities were't stolen?

Good question! Hopefully the government will answer that one for you by releasing the confiscated airport cctv showing the hijackers boarding the planes. Err, Hopefully.

Good question! Hopefully the government will answer that one for you by releasing the confiscated airport cctv showing the hijackers boarding the planes. Err, Hopefully.

Considering it is evidence to be used, don't hold your breath.

Considering it is evidence to be used, don't hold your breath.

What is that supposed to mean? Used by whom? And for what? A lawsuit against dead people?

What is that supposed to mean? Used by whom? And for what? A lawsuit against dead people?

you really are stupid aren't you?

WTC is a crime scene. The Pentagon is a crime scene. You collect all the evidence. Most of the time, the evidence is not made public unless there's a trial. Since I doubt there's going to be a trial, I sincerely doubt we'll see the evidence.

the only conspiracy is the one made by bush.. HE IS THE ONLY TERRORIST

the only conspiracy is the one made by bush.. HE IS THE ONLY TERRORIST

This is your first post? Nice to see that you just made a complete fool out of yourself.

Prove it.

you really are stupid aren't you?

WTC is a crime scene. The Pentagon is a crime scene. You collect all the evidence. Most of the time, the evidence is not made public unless there's a trial. Since I doubt there's going to be a trial, I sincerely doubt we'll see the evidence.

Stupid? You complete fuckin' prick.

Campaigners for truth have been screaming for years for these sites to be treated as crime scenes. It took over 400 days for the Bush to agree an 'investigation', by which time evidence had been destroyed, classified or swept under the carpet.

If a skyscraper falls down for any reason, there's an exhaustive investigation- that was blocked.

If a plane crashes for any reason, there's an exhaustive investigation- that was blocked.

If the hijackers IDs were swapped then the government have lied to you about who they were, because they have tapes of the passengers boarding their planes.

If the hijacker's IDs were not swapped then the governmaent have lied to you about who they were because several of them are alive and well.

Stupid? You complete fuckin' prick.

And you think this is going to upset me? This is nothing compared to what I've been called in the past. Actually, compared to that, this is an amature comeback line. :D

Campaigners for truth have been screaming for years for these sites to be treated as crime scenes. It took over 400 days for the Bush to agree an 'investigation', by which time evidence had been destroyed, classified or swept under the carpet.

What makes you think that evidence wasn't being gathered prior to Bush agreeing to an investigation (Which was the 9/11 Commission which was a complete joke)

If a skyscraper falls down for any reason, there's an exhaustive investigation- that was blocked.

Proof?

If a plane crashes for any reason, there's an exhaustive investigation- that was blocked.

Proof?

If the hijackers IDs were swapped then the government have lied to you about who they were, because they have tapes of the passengers boarding their planes.

Welcome to the real world Brattain. You can only go by what you have on hand. Now where have I said that before?

If the hijacker's IDs were not swapped then the governmaent have lied to you about who they were because several of them are alive and well.

And tell me what government doesn't lie?

conspiracy theories are all people have left when they are stuck with such a dishonest govt as ours
There is really no such thing as an honest government until there is complete transparency in all government proceedings and complete disclouse of all documentation kept by the governments.

Good question! Hopefully the government will answer that one for you by releasing the confiscated airport cctv showing the hijackers boarding the planes. Err, Hopefully.
Forgive my gross generalisation, but... when a Muslim guy, adorning his long flowing robes and turban walks through an airport, he looks just like every other Muslim robe wearing male until you can see the face. And when they decide to grow beards, they appear even more alike, so by all logic, if they're covered up, they tend to look the same.

the only conspiracy is the one made by bush.. HE IS THE ONLY TERRORIST
Ok, so does that mean that Timothy McVeigh isn't a terrorist? That's he's a 'freedom fighter' and that he set the bomb in Oklahoma City because he wanted to help free the red states from those blasted sinnin' blue states? :p

Ya...we'll analyze it with our knowledge and make concessions as needed.
the links are in the realm of the OP

you really are stupid aren't you?

WTC is a crime scene. The Pentagon is a crime scene. You collect all the evidence. Most of the time, the evidence is not made public unless there's a trial. Since I doubt there's going to be a trial, I sincerely doubt we'll see the evidence.
yes because the Govt isnt in the habit of collecting and airing evidence against itself:rolleyes:

This is your first post? Nice to see that you just made a complete fool out of yourself.

Prove it.
Niuewe Kempen is the Voice of God

And you think this is going to upset me? This is nothing compared to what I've been called in the past. Actually, compared to that, this is an amature comeback line. :D



What makes you think that evidence wasn't being gathered prior to Bush agreeing to an investigation (Which was the 9/11 Commission which was a complete joke)



Proof?



Proof?



Welcome to the real world Brattain. You can only go by what you have on hand. Now where have I said that before?



And tell me what government doesn't lie?
actually Bush OPPOSED the formation of a 911 commission (which I agree with you became just another govt whitewash) and was only forced into accepting one and secondly no one should give you proof of anything because you dont know how to respect when people are speaking truth to power--you will remain a dupe and victim of the establishment your whole life with your attatude

Niuewe Kempen is the Voice of God

...And we're supposed to take you and your views seriously when you say this stuff?

Riiiiight....

Hmm, according to the BBC, several of the hijacks are alive, though. Sounds like a rather large problem for a story that says they crashed into a building that collapsed violently. Just some food for thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Has this been explained?

There is really no such thing as an honest government until there is complete transparency in all government proceedings and complete disclouse of all documentation kept by the governments.
Aye

Bushs secrecy in Govt is an extension of his Fascist assault on everything American and Human

actually Bush OPPOSED the formation of a 911 commission (which I agree with you became just another govt whitewash) and was only forced into accepting one and secondly no one should give you proof of anything because you dont know how to respect when people are speaking truth to power--you will remain a dupe and victim of the establishment your whole life with your attatude

This just goe to show how ignorant of the world you really are. What makes you think you are the only one spouting truth?

Ok, so does that mean that Timothy McVeigh isn't a terrorist? That's he's a 'freedom fighter' and that he set the bomb in Oklahoma City because he wanted to help free the red states from those blasted sinnin' blue states? :p
there are hints that there couldve been a mideast connection to what McViegh was doing--kinda of like a practice run for 911 maybe? In any event the neocons are in neck deep since theyre the ones who empowered and founded Islamofascism in the first place (thinking that theyd be easy to control) It all goes back to the dirty oil and endless warfare scenarios of the bloodthirsty war profiteers (Bushs primary constituents)

...And we're supposed to take you and your views seriously when you say this stuff?

Riiiiight....
one someone utters a truth whether its on purpose or not we should respond with shock and awe and a deep deep respoect

This just goe to show how ignorant of the world you really are. What makes you think you are the only one spouting truth?
by the vehemance of the opposition of those who act to defend the powerful

by the vehemance of the opposition of those who act to defend the powerful

All I can say to this is.

Yea right!

If you think I'm going to believe that (and I know you know that I don't) then I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco.

All I can say to this is.

Yea right!

If you think I'm going to believe that (and I know you know that I don't) then I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco.
I dont buy bridges in earthquake zones:D

Actually bridges in earthquake zones are pretty safe. They need a MAJOR quake to do damage due to the construction type.

Actually bridges in earthquake zones are pretty safe. They need a MAJOR quake to do damage due to the construction type.
meanwhile every car ON the bridge during an earthquake is cast off into the sea like fleas from a dogs head

Na...they bounce around a little to. They don't fall off.

Aye

Bushs secrecy in Govt is an extension of his Fascist assault on everything American and Human
The American government has always been closer to fascist than communist because of its strong right leanings, so it wouldn't be just the Bush Administration (McCarthy anyone?). Further, I'd hardly consider it facist so much as Draconian.
there are hints that there couldve been a mideast connection to what McViegh was doing--kinda of like a practice run for 911 maybe? In any event the neocons are in neck deep since theyre the ones who empowered and founded Islamofascism in the first place (thinking that theyd be easy to control) It all goes back to the dirty oil and endless warfare scenarios of the bloodthirsty war profiteers (Bushs primary constituents)
1 - if it was a practice run, why did he simply just set bombs? Why didn't he perish with the rest? After all, practice run tends to imply that the plan was acted out to test it. Plus, there is also the trial and since McViegh did attack the American public and the government had nothing to do with it, do you honestly think they'd hide it? Or even any facts about collaboration efforts?

Hints are not evidence, they're heresy.

2 - The "Neo-cons" started to empower the militant groups long before the Bush administration, in fact, long before the days of Neo-Conservatist, They armed them during the cold war when there was a common enemy - the Soviets.

3 - The dirty oil is much newer than any attempts to arm the Middle East militas.

4 - Irregardless, I still think Bush is an asshole, I just think you're blowing out your ass with these asinine theories and nothing more than thirdhand heresy, supporting at best, vague descriptions of events without relative spefics.

What makes you think that evidence wasn't being gathered prior to Bush agreeing to an investigation (Which was the 9/11 Commission which was a complete joke)


Ex MI6 Counter-Terrorism Officer on 9/11 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974)

I suppose this guy is also stupid?

Ex MI6 Counter-Terrorism Officer on 9/11 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974)

I suppose this guy is also stupid?
So, you're basing your level of 'intelligence' against that of someone else?

So, you're basing your level of 'intelligence' against that of someone else?
no--he/she is trying to cure Cornys partisan denial syndrome

no--he/she is trying to cure Cornys partisan denial syndrome

:rolleyes:

no--he/she is trying to cure Cornys partisan denial syndrome
Too bad you haven't been cured of 'Paranoia Conspiracy Madness Syndrome'... and I hear the side effects are nasty. And it's just a darn shame that there is no known cure as of yet...

Yep....like how we didn't land on the moon. :P

9/11 Conspiracy: Who is/was responsible? Bin Laden? Bush's PNAC cronies? Both? Did anyone stand to gain? Have they gained?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose

Turn the volume up and watch this film folks before you reply and send the link to your to your friends. You might not believe all of it, but if any of it is true- God help us.

a ludicrous joke,and beyond feeble attemt to portray something tragic...nay...an atrocity as something other then what it was.

Not to mention you can see all the edits and how NOTHING makes sense the way they do. This is why I hate conspiracy theorists.

Yep....like how we didn't land on the moon. :P
After all, the quality was shitty and the sound suck - it had to be a low-cost production video staged by the government. After all, small penis syndrome was half the reason for the cold war! :p

Not to mention you can see all the edits and how NOTHING makes sense the way they do. This is why I hate conspiracy theorists.
you say this as if the official version makes any sense

you say this as if the official version makes any sense
Well, it makes more sense than the illogical tripe that was spouted in the video that the thread starter linked here.

I started reading this thread and quite frankly I am amazed!!
I recently watched Loose Change (2nd edition) and was shocked, however, being someone that will not blindly take other peoples opinions on board I decided to do some of my own research. So I went through all the other documentaries: 911: in plane site, confronting the evidence etc etc and I also followed their reccomendations to go out and check the footage for myself. What did I conclude? That the 911 commision report (yes I read all 500+ pages of it) is one of the best works of fiction ever. I cannot get into the science behind what happened as I am not a scientist and I cannot say that it was an inside job as anything I say would be hypothetical. What I can say is that there are many, many questions that need to be answered about 9/11 that have not been answered by the commision report. E.g. what happened to the flight recorders? How did paper passports survive the crashes? Why have 9 or so of the 15/16 "hijackers" been proved to be alive and well?

This thread sums up the arguement well. You have people coming up with reasoned and well researched arguements that do not fit in with the official explanation which are debunked with comments like: "anyone who disagrees with the govt is unpatriotic and therefore wrong". This is the sad part of it, no one is prepared to stand up and discuss it reasonably and that in itself is suspicious to say the least. Loose change is very well made, it does not offer up "wild conspiracy theories" it merely asks questions that the whole world has a right to have answered.

It is clear to anyone that has a brain that the official story does not add up so the question is: what did happen?

I don't particularly care.

9/11 Conspiracy: Who is/was responsible? Bin Laden? Bush's PNAC cronies? Both? Did anyone stand to gain? Have they gained?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose

Turn the volume up and watch this film folks before you reply and send the link to your to your friends. You might not believe all of it, but if any of it is true- God help us.


:rolleyes:

Talk about your useful idiots.

There is a similar thread on the Forum right now, what if,
it seems they are desperate for it to be true.

There is a similar thread on the Forum right now, what if,
it seems they are desperate for it to be true.

Are they still trying to prove that no plane hit the Pentagon?

Heres what I know:

Both WTC towers collapsed into their own footprint. I highly doubt a plane, hitting it at the top, would cause such a phenomenon. The top may have collapsed or broken off, but no way would the whole entire building collapse. Every single steel (or whatever they are made of I may be wrong saying steel) column in the building would need to fail at once in order for something like that to happen. This happening to both buildings on the same day is almost impossible. These buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.

From what I have read, there was some power outages in Washington DC and the WTC a couple days before 9/11. Perfect for the real terrorists to do their deed.

Also, there were drills run on the morning of 9/11 (before the planes hit) that simulated planes being used as weapons to crash into buildings. What a coincidence. It is also convenient in that NORAD got confused as to which planes were part of the drill and which werent.

You wont see this shit in the "liberal" media. I am not ruling out Israel as a possibility either.

Do Not Grave Dig!!

Heres what I know:

Both WTC towers collapsed into their own footprint. I highly doubt a plane, hitting it at the top, would cause such a phenomenon. The top may have collapsed or broken off, but no way would the whole entire building collapse. Every single steel (or whatever they are made of I may be wrong saying steel) column in the building would need to fail at once in order for something like that to happen. This happening to both buildings on the same day is almost impossible. These buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.

From what I have read, there was some power outages in Washington DC and the WTC a couple days before 9/11. Perfect for the real terrorists to do their deed.

Also, there were drills run on the morning of 9/11 (before the planes hit) that simulated planes being used as weapons to crash into buildings. What a coincidence. It is also convenient in that NORAD got confused as to which planes were part of the drill and which werent.

You wont see this shit in the "liberal" media. I am not ruling out Israel as a possibility either.

Wow, that post only proves that you're gullible and you haven't read the many, many posts that prove you wrong. I really wish people as easily fooled as you were somehow prevented from voting, driving motor vehicles, or working with sharp objects for everyone's sake.

Wow, that post only proves that you're gullible and you haven't read the many, many posts that prove you wrong. I really wish people as easily fooled as you were somehow prevented from voting, driving motor vehicles, or working with sharp objects for everyone's sake.


It would also be a good idea for their owners to have them spayed and neutered too. Its just the responsible thing to do.

I started reading this thread and quite frankly I am amazed!!
I recently watched Loose Change (2nd edition) and was shocked, however, being someone that will not blindly take other peoples opinions on board I decided to do some of my own research. So I went through all the other documentaries: 911: in plane site, confronting the evidence etc etc and I also followed their reccomendations to go out and check the footage for myself. What did I conclude? That the 911 commision report (yes I read all 500+ pages of it) is one of the best works of fiction ever. I cannot get into the science behind what happened as I am not a scientist and I cannot say that it was an inside job as anything I say would be hypothetical. What I can say is that there are many, many questions that need to be answered about 9/11 that have not been answered by the commision report. E.g. what happened to the flight recorders? How did paper passports survive the crashes? Why have 9 or so of the 15/16 "hijackers" been proved to be alive and well?

This thread sums up the arguement well. You have people coming up with reasoned and well researched arguements that do not fit in with the official explanation which are debunked with comments like: "anyone who disagrees with the govt is unpatriotic and therefore wrong". This is the sad part of it, no one is prepared to stand up and discuss it reasonably and that in itself is suspicious to say the least. Loose change is very well made, it does not offer up "wild conspiracy theories" it merely asks questions that the whole world has a right to have answered.

It is clear to anyone that has a brain that the official story does not add up so the question is: what did happen?

So is any of what this guy's saying true? Did they lose the recorders and somehow recover paper ID's in the wreckage? Are any of the hijackers alive?

I'm not swinging either way, I'm asking if anyone knows. The answer is probably buried somewhere in this thread, but I'll be damned if I'm scanning through all these pages for it.

So is any of what this guy's saying true? Did they lose the recorders and somehow recover paper ID's in the wreckage? Are any of the hijackers alive?

I'm not swinging either way, I'm asking if anyone knows. The answer is probably buried somewhere in this thread, but I'll be damned if I'm scanning through all these pages for it.
The "live hijackers" are people using fake IDs with the dead hijackers names on them. It happens alot. One of my friends is used his dead brother's social security number to get a full set of ID because he's got a few felonies on his record. That's in the USA. It's easier in Arab countries where a few dollars will bribe any beaurocrat.

The "live hijackers" are people using fake IDs with the dead hijackers names on them. It happens alot. One of my friends is used his dead brother's social security number to get a full set of ID because he's got a few felonies on his record. That's in the USA. It's easier in Arab countries where a few dollars will bribe any beaurocrat.

Kay what about the other questions I had?

Wow, that post only proves that you're gullible and you haven't read the many, many posts that prove you wrong. I really wish people as easily fooled as you were somehow prevented from voting, driving motor vehicles, or working with sharp objects for everyone's sake.

Thank God for ad hominem.

Are you finished insulting me? If so, do you want to actually prove it wrong?

Thank God for ad hominem.

Are you finished insulting me? If so, do you want to actually prove it wrong?

Yea. Its called reading all 43 pages of this thread. All the evidence that Battian has presented was thoroughly trashed and thrown into the garbage.

Yea. Its called reading all 43 pages of this thread. All the evidence that Battian has presented was thoroughly trashed and thrown into the garbage.

Of course, because I've got that time...

Of course, because I've got that time...

I don't have the time either to link to every post (which is 90% of this thread) debunking everything Battian stated. Even he don't post in this thread no more.

I don't have the time either to link to every post (which is 90% of this thread) debunking everything Battian stated. Even he don't post in this thread no more.

You dont have to, just explain how they collapsed into their own footprint.

You dont have to, just explain how they collapsed into their own footprint.

Its in one of the earlier posts near the beginning of this thread.

I don't think there was a conspiracy at all.

Except for the conspiracy that radical Muslim terrorists would hijack our own planes and fly them into some of our buildings.

The sinking of the USS Maine was actually a coal fire, a cover-up to lead America into the Spanish-American war.
Pearl Harbor was known beforehand by the FDR administration, and the administration even goaded the Japanese to attack (embargos and such). This led a reluctant america into WWII.
I don't see how 9/11 is any different. Whether or not the US government orchestrated it or not, they had something to do with it.

The sinking of the USS Maine was actually a coal fire, a cover-up to lead America into the Spanish-American war.

Just like the Spanish said it was back in 1898. US didn't believe it for some unknown reason and the Press only ran with the US version. Yellow journalism at its finest. Come to think of it, its still around just now moved to the Television.

Pearl Harbor was known beforehand by the FDR administration, and the administration even goaded the Japanese to attack (embargos and such). This led a reluctant america into WWII.

Oh brother. Do people still believe this crap?

I don't see how 9/11 is any different. Whether or not the US government orchestrated it or not, they had something to do with it.

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh brother. You really are hopeless.

You dont have to, just explain how they collapsed into their own footprint.


Jesus Christ!

The steel structure of the building was severly compromised by the raging inferno of jet fuel.

Jesus Christ!

Do not take the Lord's name in vein.

The steel structure of the building was severly compromised by the raging inferno of jet fuel.

Not to mention insolation from the building itself burning due to the fire.

Oh brother. Do people still believe this crap?

Uh, yeah, because its kinda true. On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Released naval records (hello FOIA) prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “…the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow…”

But I guess youll just resort to saying stuff like :

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh brother. You really are hopeless.

instead of proving otherwise.

Jesus Christ!

The steel structure of the building was severly compromised by the raging inferno of jet fuel.

I still dont understand how the ENTIRE STEEL STRUCTURE was severely compromised. The building was hit at the top. If the top fell over I would understand, but the ENTIRE building?

Uh, yeah, because its kinda true. On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “…the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow…”

But I guess youll just resort to saying stuff like :

Linkie please! I have studied World War II in depth so I would love to see the link to this messege.

instead of proving otherwise.

I don't have to prove it. Its already been proven. Your just to lazy to look at the proof yourself.

I still dont understand how the ENTIRE STEEL STRUCTURE was severely compromised. The building was hit at the top. If the top fell over I would understand, but the ENTIRE building?

I guess you do not understand the laws of physics then.

Linkie please! I have studied World War II in depth so I would love to see the link to this messege.

It is in a book, Day Of Deceit. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
The author made a FOIA request and was actually given documents and messages showing we were listening to everything the Japanese were transmitting over radio.

I guess you do not understand the laws of physics then.

OK I see we cant get past the idea of personal attacks so I'm going to take my questions elsewhere.

It is in a book, Day Of Deceit. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
The author made a FOIA request and was actually given documents and messages showing we were listening to everything the Japanese were transmitting over radio.

Couple of things. 1) The Japanese kept radio silence except when the code words, Climb mt Nagiaka (or however you spell it). 2) Where did he get his proof? Where can I actually see the proof for myself? Its nice its in a book but if this was released by the FOIA, where is the original documents?

OK I see we cant get past the idea of personal attacks so I'm going to take my questions elsewhere.

Well if you want to learn, then read the thread.

On top of that, we already know that we were cracking their codes. Why do you think every pacific base was put on a war footing? Your right about one thing, Washington did know an attack was coming, they just didn't know where.

Oh brother. Do people still believe this crap?

Sadly, there's still probably a couple hundred that still do somewhere.

Do not take the Lord's name in vein.

It's cool. Him and I go way back



Not to mention insolation from the building itself burning due to the fire.

Not to mention a 757 hitting it.

:headbang:

It's cool. Him and I go way back

I suggest you read the Bible more :D

Not to mention a 757 hitting it.

:headbang:

Well the fire from the plane hitting the building, ignited all the flameable materials in the building thus making the fire hotter than it would otherwise been. The Fire caused the steel to weaken but not melt but weakened it enough so that it couldn't support the weight.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president is not to blame for 9/11 anyone who thinks so is a terrorist. And I dont talk to laberal terrorists. It is unamerican to say that the president did something wrong. Unless of course its a laberal president.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president is not to blame for 9/11 anyone who thinks so is a terrorist. And I dont talk to laberal terrorists. It is unamerican to say that the president did something wrong. Unless of course its a laberal president.

Please tell me this is Roleplay and that you don't honestly believe this tripe.

So is any of what this guy's saying true? Did they lose the recorders and somehow recover paper ID's in the wreckage? Are any of the hijackers alive?

I'm not swinging either way, I'm asking if anyone knows. The answer is probably buried somewhere in this thread, but I'll be damned if I'm scanning through all these pages for it.

None of the 4 flight recorders from the 2 planes that hit the WTC were recovered according to the commission report. However, according to the commission report they found 2 passports belonging to the terrorists.
All I can suggest is that you look at the evidence for yourself and more importantly look at ALL the evidence - including larry silverstein's admission that they chose to "pull" WTC 7.
Take a look at the trading that went on that day and the put options against Boeing and United Airlines. But most importantly, read the commission report. Then draw your own conclusions.

I suggest you read the Bible more :D



Well the fire from the plane hitting the building, ignited all the flameable materials in the building thus making the fire hotter than it would otherwise been. The Fire caused the steel to weaken but not melt but weakened it enough so that it couldn't support the weight.

And yet, there were reports (and pictures) of not merely 'weakened' but molten steel found in the wreckage. I've yet to see any real explanation for this.

Jesus Christ!

The steel structure of the building was severly compromised by the raging inferno of jet fuel.

The same raging inferno of jet fuel that all burnt off on impact - see any videos of the planes striking the towers?
The hermetically sealed structure of the building that does not allow fire to travel through the building?
Health and safety regulations that do not allow too much flammable material in such buildings.
The transcript of a call from a fireman that had reached the fire in one of hte towers and told his control he could easily put it out.

There are too many inconsistencies in the whole story which deeply saddens me.
One final thing, if you live in Chicago; be afraid.....

http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsandtrends/20040312-starkman.html

*SNIP*
No grave digging!