911 Clues EVERYONE MISSED (video)

[immune]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwq04_KhCeI

[LARED]

1. Its' truly amazing that someone on the scene figured out the building

collapsed due to structural failure. Of all the things he could have guessed, he choose structural failure to describe why the building collapsed instead of; fairies, dustification, direct energy weapons, thermite, lasers, or bed bug infestation.

It is beyond comprehension how just anyone on the street figured out that the building suffered a structural collapse when it fell. :sarcasm:

Only a truther could possibly be baffled by this.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. People could feel those fires on the ground.

They were blocks away from a fire that high, and yet they could feel the heat.

Only a 9/11 Truth advocate could be baffled by this.

[Liberal_Dog]

3. Well, Of Course

I always pick out random guys on the street whenever I have any kind of engineering question. :sarcasm:

[LARED]

8. Was there an engineering question?

Seems to me it is just a guy giving his opinion.

[immune]

9. It was pure luck

that they randomly chose a Bush insider and a bio-warfare expert and a pharma director to interview. Nothing but luck for the news crews that day. Surprised he didn't say the pilots were on prozac and had a suicidal moment. Could've tied it all together. :sarcasm:

{edit to add ... oh and he probably could've predicted the upcoming anthrax attacks, too.

[defendandprotect]

4. Good video to see again -- Fox gives first opportunity for cover story ....

Then up is Dan Rather who continues to push the guy for his "deep wisdom" --
though this has just happened!! More pushing and Dan Rather gets the magic
word - - BIN LADEN!!

Next is NBC but don't know host -- but he crucifies BIN LADEN!

[deconstruct911]

5. Both CFR guys....

Rather's and Hauer

[defendandprotect]

24. Funny how CFR was so often questioned and how all of that kind of died away ... !!

Not familiar with Hauer, at all --

But always thought Rather a very mixed bag -- from his first reports

re Zapruder film!!

Thank you -- didn't know that about either! :)

[deconstruct911]

33. No problem

Hauer= 9 11 suspect awaiting indictment. Some points were mentioned in the video about his connections. He hired the FBI's John O'Neil as HEAD of security at the WTC JUST before 9 11. At the time Hauer was connected to Kroll, which did security for the complex. Now none of that was mentioned on CBS or ABC. Peter Jennings (also CFR member) interviewed Hauer on 9 11 as well. Perhaps Hauer was just in a position to know about Bin Laden and what kind of fire the buildings he was responsible for could withstand.

The really weird thing is Jennings and Rather's did most of the Iran/Contra CIA drug running reports.

[defendandprotect]

94. Well, that's a fairly well loaded resume --

Was just looking for Gary Webb's book "Dark Alliance" at my library yesterday

and they don't have it! Never did read it -- but so much of what he was

reporting was obviously true -- with a really vicious attack on him following

the reports -- that I don't see how the nation let that one get away from us!!


Peter Jennings didn't used to bother me much until he was involved with a

JFK assassination documentary which I watched part of and dumped quickly because

it was total disinformation and misinformation. Sometime after that he was

announcing he had cancer and died very quickly thereafter!

At one point I read a very interesting article by Walter Cronkite -- two actually --

one was on a UFO experience he had at a US rocket launching! -- and the other was

about his involvement with another documentary quite a while back also on JFK

assassination and the head wounds! Cronkite said as the documentary went on it

was obvious what the conclusions should be but the "boards" they were holding up

for him to read kept reporting just the opposite. Until by the end, all of the

conclusions were reversed. Cronkite was also in his military days involved with

intellience, as I recall.

Carl Bernstein reported on CIA journalists in our "press" decades ago -- can't imagine

how many thousands of them must be reporting our news every day now!!


And, Rather remains another question still --

Have an interesting book here -- still unread -- on Iran/Contra I always plan to get

to -- always more to know about that one! At the time of Gary Webb, Rep. Maxine Waters

got rather chatty about Wall St. Journal -- Dow Jones -- and one of the NY Banks --

and the money laundering going on -- at that time $500 million a year -- or was it

$500 billion. These millions, billions, trillions now are fuzzying my brain!

Keep on tellin' it --

:)

[terrafirma]

6. Did you sleep through 1993?

The USS Cole?

The Embassy bombings?

It's not as if bin Laden wad an unknown in 2001.

.... Or were all those other attacks coordinated by GW as well?

[immune]

10. Did you know

the USS Cole was in Lebonese territorial waters and maybe that some people felt they were being invaded? Betcha there'd be an uproar if a Lebonese warship parked in Boston harbor, well, if they had one I mean. (oops, I mean Yemen .. doesn't matter, we've got warships crammed up everybody's @$#$)

Did you also know George Washington hired Barbary pirates to attack English ships that invaded US territorial waters way back when? Oh wait, the US didn't exist yet .. just a lonely outpost owned by England.

More American exceptionalism.

[SDuderstadt]

11. "immune Logic"

the attack on the U.S.S. Cole was justified.

Fucking unbelievable.

[terrafirma]

12. What's interesting

with that logic is that immune at least recognizes that there are folks in the world that aren't big fans of the US and are out to do us harm (justified or not).

Why he/she cannot (or will not) apply that same logic to 9/11 is boggling.

[immune]

15. No, what immune recognizes

is that provocation equals response. At least that's how it works for the US ... even if somebody has to make up the provocation to justify the response. Funny how we have such a tendency to create our own enemies. Well, not funny, ha ha, I guess.

Poke a bear enough times and he'll probably respond.

[SDuderstadt]

19. "immune Logic"...

a routine harboring and refueling stop is "provocation".

Fucking unbelievable.

[defendandprotect]

26. Depends on where in the circle you begin ... it's usually US terrorism at the heart of the play....

[hack89]

13. The Cole was refueling in Yemen

with the permission of the government. It was a routine visit that pumped needed money into the local economy.

There would be no uproar if that Lebanese warship was invited by the city of Boston to visit.

[zappaman]

14. stop it with the facts!

they get in the way of copy/paste from CT sites.

[immune]

16. Permission of the government

often does not reflect the wishes of the people. Remember the real tea party?

[SDuderstadt]

17. "immune Logic"...

al Qaeda represents the "wishes of the people".

Maybe "immune" should let the families of the 17 sailors murdered by al Qaeda know that. Fucking unbelievable.

P.S. I have frankly had it with "immune's" cheerleading for al Qaeda.

[zappaman]

18. I have also had it

with the AL QAEDA cheerleading.

[immune]

21. Are you talking about that

poem allegedly written by Bin Laden in January, 2001? Half of provocation involves demonizing and dehumanizing the people you want to attack or use as a scapegoat.

http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole8.htm

Still provoking the middle east in 2008 ...

Hezbollah says USS Cole threatens regional stability
Lebanon did not ask for US warship: PM

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/02/29/46307.html

[SDuderstadt]

22. I am talking about "immune's"...

cheerleading for al Qaeda.

"immune Logic":

Al Qaeda is just misunderstood.

[immune]

73. Did they ever catch the perp

to know whether or not he was al qaeda? I guess assumptions are all we need anymore.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Well, in "immune world"...

we apparently don't need facts or research.

I seriously do not know how ANYONE could possibly be this uninformed, with the exception of D&P.

Fucking unbelievable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/03/AR2008050302047.html

[immune]

77. So I take

that load of crap answer to mean "no, they never caught the perp". Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

79. How in the fuck could anyone...

Including "immune", read that story in the WashPo, then possibly conclude.the "perp(s)" were never caught?

Fucking unbelievable.

[immune]

84. From your link

"Two suspects, described as the key organizers, were captured outside Yemen and are being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Many details of their alleged involvement remain classified. It is unclear when -- or if -- they will be tried by the military."

Alleged involvement? No trials? Confession by torture? I thought you were against torture. I thought you wanted Bush/Cheney brought up on charges for torturing people into making confessions. Do you change your mind about being against torture whenever it bolsters your claims?

[SDuderstadt]

86. "immune logic"...

if two of the perps were thrown into Guantanamo, that means they were never "caught".

Only someone like "immune" could read of one of the perps escaping from prison, then conclude he was "never caught".

Fucking unbelievable.

[immune]

95. duplicate

[SDuderstadt]

97. Oh, I see...

Now "immune's" claim is that the perps were caught, but we don't really know that they are the perps. Of, course, he ignores those convicted and imprisoned in Yemen that have either escaped or have been released by the authorities.

Funny, I don't see any proof that that the two guys in Guantanamo were actually tortured. "immune" just assumes they were. Then, he goes on to accuse me of supporting toture. Again, the actual issue we were "debating" was whether the perp(s) was "caught". Hmm, questioning my motives, character and good faith again. Well, at least he didn't threaten me with "facing the needle", again.

Does anyone wonder why "immune" is not taken seriously here?

[immune]

99. Changing the story when its expedient.

Well, at least he didn't threaten me with "facing the needle", again.

that is a blatant lie. And aren't you the one who just yesterday blasted someone for breaking the rules by posting content from a different thread? At leaat he didn't take it out of context.

Where did I claim the "perps" were caught? I said two men were CAPTURED. Putting words in my mouth again?

What do they do with prisoners in Gitmo, dude? Play checkers to pass the time?

[SDuderstadt]

100. Hmmm...

so, "at least he didn't threaten me with 'facing the needle', again" is a blatant lie? Well, if the threat was made again, I must have missed it. I guess I'll take "immune's" word for it.

And, again, "immune" creates another strawman by claiming I accused him of saying "two perps were caught". I didn't. It was the WashPo and ME who said that two perps were caught and that "immune" was ignoring the other others who were caught, convicted and imprisoned. In the meantime, maybe "immune" could enlighten us as to the difference between "caught" and "captured".

And, again, "immune" offers no evidence whatsoever that the two in Guantanamo were actually tortured and that it played a role in either their capture or any determination of guilt. That's called "begging" the question". And, that concludes our LOGIC lesson for today.

[immune]

102. How pathetic.

[immune]

104. "In the meantime,

maybe "immune" could enlighten us as to the difference between "caught" and "captured"."

Oh, I dunno. Maybe like "caught" red handed with a smoking gun (or bomb, in this case) in his hand. Or caught with one's hand in the cookie jar.

And maybe "captured" while running from the scene of a crime ... and brought in for questioning.

Hell, you can even capture film footage just like the guy in the OP. I don't think caught would fit in that case unless someone threw the video across the room at him.

Too bad someone didn't have a camera handy to capture photos of these guys lighting a fuse. Then they'd have a case.

[SDuderstadt]

105. So...

now "immune" is denying that if something is "captured" on film, it is "caught" on film? Jesus, that's brilliant.

In the meantime, there IS video of the SUICIDE attack. Why "immune" would demand proof that one of the planners "lit a fuse" is anyone's guess, but it's probably safe to assume that none of the actual bombers are in any jail.

Duh. I guess we can add the U.S.S. Cole attack to the long (and growing) list of things "immune" knows nothing about.

[immune]

106. Link please

showing that one or both of the guys in Guantanamo is/are the same as in the video proving their guilt that you claim exists. If the case is that cut and dried, why the hesitation to try, convict and execute them? I would have no problem with that.

So, film footage aside, was Saddam "caught" breaking a law, or was he "captured" while merely running for his life from people he know would (and did) kill him? Its that same old nuance business that you were giving me grief over not understanding a week or so ago. Shoe, meet other foot.

[SDuderstadt]

107. Apparently "immune" has a reading comprehension problem or...

he would not demand proof that the guys in Guantanamo are the same guys in the video of a SUICIDE attack. I also never said the video was, in any way, evidence of the involvement of the two guys in Guantanamo.

Duh.

[immune]

108. Well there you go.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Jesus...

I hope "immune" does not think the fact that the video of a suicide attack is not evidence of the guilt of others involved in the planning and execution of the attack is proof others weren't involved, but I'm really not hopeful.

[immune]

110. I hate to break it to you

but capturing a couple guys and throwing them in the clink without even trying to prove the case outside a few rounds on the waterboard, doesn't pass the smell test.

There is no proof of anything.

Hell, there was even speculation at the time that it could have been a Mossad black op.

[SDuderstadt]

111. And, again, "immune" totally ignores...

the guys captured, convicted and imprisoned in Yemen.

And, of course, the "outside of a couple rounds on the waterboard" is just another "immune" strawman. This would be the same "immune" demanding proof that the two guys held in Guantanamo are the same guys shown in the video of a suicide bombing.

Too funny.

[immune]

112. Yemeni prison guards are

less prone to torture their prisoners than Gitmo? And Yemeni jails don't hold political prisoners like ours do? Is that your point?

And yeah, its such an outlandish demand ... proof. I'll remember that next time you demand some.

[SDuderstadt]

113. So, now the question apparently is not whether...

the perps were caught, it's whether anyone has proved they are guilty to "immune's" satisfaction.

And, I'm not sure what a Yemeni prison guard torturing a prisoner (assuming they even did) who was already convicted at trial could POSSIBLY have to do with the evidence presented at that trial.

Again, all of this is coming from someone who didn't even know the attack on the U.S.S. Cole was a suicide bombing. I'm also willing to bet "immune" is not aware that al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack. Too funny.

[immune]

114. Got a transcript of the trial?

Didn't think so.

No, it was CLAIMED to be a suicide bombing. No mention of the possiblily of timed charges? Nah, that wouldn't fit real well in a sound byte, too complicated and technical for Fox fans.

Any asshole can pick up the phone and say .... "hey, Im al ciada and i dunnit". Good enough for government work.

[SDuderstadt]

115. I think it's safe to assume that when attackers...

ram a large ship with an explosive-laden inflatable boat and blow a huge hole in the side of it, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 others in the process, the attackers probably didn't survive.

In the meantime, I am informing all courts around the world that, unless "immune" is provided with a transcript, no proceeding shall have any force or effect. BTW, I thought that "immune" demanding a trial transcript of me, then concluding I didn't have one in the same breath, shows a profound lack of critical thinking skills. But, of course, we already knew that.

Too funny.

[immune]

116. Well damn

you're right, I did forget the part about the Cole being rammed. So I went looking for what else I might have forgotten and found this:

"On Oct. 12, 2000, a small boat loaded with explosives rammed into the side of the USS Cole as the ship refueled in port at Aden, killing the 17 Navy personnel.

"(Able Danger members) also identified the threat to the USS Cole two weeks before the attack, and two days before the attack were screaming not to let the (ship) come into the harbor at Yemen, because they knew something was going to happen," he said."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10771.htm

[SDuderstadt]

117. Gee...

"information" from Curt Weldon (remember him? The GOP congressman that wanted to go to Iraq to "find the WMD himself") cited from a CT website.

Too funny.

[immune]

96. No, two men were captured

and thrown into Guantanamo. You have no clue where these men were on the day the Cole was bombed and neither do the authorities. So, what the hell do you think the authorities do to prisoners at Gitmo besides torture them until they confess to "masterminding" whatever the hell crimes need to be "solved" for PR purposes. There are no moonlight strolls on the beaches of Cuba for them, and they know that at any moment, day or night, the guys with the pliers could show up to have a "chat" with them.

You know that doesn't make them guilty of anything and the officials holding them incommunicado and refusing to try them in a court of law know it, too. Do you really think that's justice for the men who died on the Cole? I think its a postmortem slap in the face to all the victims, dead and living dead.

How many times have you said, right here on this board, that you're staunchly against torture and that you want Bush/Cheney brought up on charges for ordering it? And now you're singing the praises of what has been "accomplished" at Gitmo in getting this confession.

That's what makes so much of what you post effing unbelievable. You contradict yourself whenever its expedient.

[SDuderstadt]

98. I wonder if "immune" will ever get tired of...

flinging strawman arguments. Do you see how he ignores the facts in the WashPo article, then creates a strawman about torture, then tries to tie me to torture?

Luckily, we have new rules for civility forthcoming.

[immune]

101. If there was evidence

that these men committed a crime they would be brought to trial. Evidentally there is no evidence.

But IF they claim torture was used to extract a confession, it can't be used in a court of law, anyway. So .... they'll just have to rot in prison to keep the American public bamboozled into believing someone's protecting them. From something.

USA USA USA

[SDuderstadt]

103. "Evidentally" (sic)...

"immune" is in possession of facts the rest of us don't have. I'd love to see them.

Oh, wait..."evidentally" (sic), this is just more of "immune's" conjecture. Too funny.

[alcibiades_mystery]

123. Ummm, the USS Cole was not attacked off Lebanon

(which is what I can only presume is what you mean by "Lebonese" (sic) waters). It was attacked in the port of Aden, in YEMEN, which is, well, not even fucking close to Lebanon.

I mean, are you joking here? You can't be this ignorant?

[zappaman]

124. "You can't be this ignorant? "

actually, yes...she can.
this is the same poster who claimed the 4 flights on 9/11 were "short flights that spent hours flying around wasting fuel."
of course, when confronted with the information that the flights were actually headed to the west coast, she joked "they ended up being short anyway".
it really is sad.

[immune]

188. Read the whole thread, al.

if you want to see the mea culpa on that. To ease the tedious search, its post 116. Read the last paragraph while you're at it. Able Danger WARNED thenm to stay the hell out of that port.

[defendandprotect]

25. Taliban/Al Qaeda were US/CIA inventions -- Bin Laden was supported by CIA

up to and probably beyond 9/11 --

US/CIA also had 24/7 supervision of these operatives.

Wasn't as though "false flag" operations weren't in play since at least

the Joint Chiefs' "Operation Northwoods" -- quickly followed by Nixon's clone

of it in "Huston Plan" --

What was Tonkin Gulf incident except a "false flag" operation?

And now 9/11 has been added to the long list of "false flag" lies --

[mrarundale]

40. where do you think "B L" gets his money?

because according to officialdumb he was cut off by his family a long time ago. Wouldn't it be kind of expensive to run such an operation? According to the book "Triple Cross" he was able to buy a used military jet (which he later refurbished) from the US for $200,000...Doesn't that seem a little, I dunno, odd to you?

[zappaman]

49. yes, it IS odd

if you can't be bothered to do the smallest bit of research...
it started at 13 when he inhierited 80 million.
now come back when you figure out the rest.
a few years maybe...?

[hack89]

66. From rich fundamentalist Saudis

So call Islamic "charities" were his biggest source of funding during the Afghan war against the USSR. They poured just as much money into the conflict as the CIA did.

[zappaman]

67. you spoiled it!

they would have figured this out within 10 years, I bet!

[deconstruct911]

70. Maybe Bin Ladens personal money

came primarily from charities at that time, although he was already rich and there was no reason to seize his funds yet. In reality the BCCI was the greatest charity of all during that time in history.

[mrarundale]

126. and who do you think runs Saudi Arabia?

Do you really think that NATO and the oil companies are going to let a bunch of supposed tribal chiefs have any real power? That country has been under outside control since oil was discovered.

[hack89]

128. I keep forgetting that everything is a conspiracy to Truthers. nt

[SDuderstadt]

7. BrassCheckTV is so stupid...

Pthat it produces a video claiming that "experts" showed up right away, but the very first "expert" clip they display features some guy who is neither noted as any sort of expert, nor is he ever named.

I had never seen that interview before that clip, but I remember the various news organization interviewing nearly everyone they could find that was willing to talk on-air and the vast majority of them never offered any opinion of who carried out the attack nor the mechanics of how the towers fell.

Beyond that, I suspected it was the work of bin Laden well before anyone on TV ever mentioned it.

Stupid video.

[undertakerlives]

20. Get over yourselves.

Fear mongering gets you nowhere. Bush hardly had the mental capacity to choose his breakfast cereal.

[immune]

23. No argument there.

So who did choose his breakfast cereal? Or, for that matter, who chose his insiders?

[defendandprotect]

27. W was a willing puppet for Cheney ... Cheney was in control on 9/11....

probably having made good use of Blackwater --

and obviously with Rumsfeld helping to manipulate Pentagon operations --

[immune]

28. Yup. Poor Georgie

couldn't even be trusted to testify in secret without Cheney's "guidance".

[defendandprotect]

30. Wasn't that amazing ...!!!

:eyes:

[immune]

31. What's amazing

is that so many people just accepted it at face value and so many others don't have the first clue that it happened.

[zappaman]

32. what's amazing

that when it comes to people who don't have the "first clue", you are head and shoulders above anyone.

[defendandprotect]

34. Sadly, completely agree - - undoubtedly, shock-awe and lack of a free press works -- !!!

Terrific posts -- !!

:)

[immune]

35. Thanks. Hey that reminds me,

I saw you over on the "new rules" thread in GD last night. Civility rules!!! Boy oh boy, If somebody ever decided to take a scrub brush to the 9/11 forum to remove all the incivility, there'd probably be half a dozen posts left. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

37. "immune" should take stock of the new...

civility rules, specifically:

2) Increased civility. Posts that question the motives, character, or good faith of other DUers serve to poison the atmosphere and make respectful discussion impossible.

To me, that presents much more of a problem for "truthers". Additionally, pending clarification from one of the admins, that does not appear to preclude anyone from questioning factual errors, flawed thinking or bias, so I am not sure what "immune" thinks will change for debunkers.

[deconstruct911]

71. To me, without questioning your motives, character, or good faith

That represents much more of a problem for yourself. Of course I'm only someone who should have enjoyed my short stay here remember?

[SDuderstadt]

72. Please explain how...

that represents a problem for me. Provide specific examples.

Take your time.

[deconstruct911]

76. My apologies

rarely do you make respectful discussion impossible.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Point to a single instance where I have ever...

questioned another member's motivation, character or good faith.

Take your time.

[deconstruct911]

81. Suggesting

another DU user of being sympathetic towards Al Qaeda?

[SDuderstadt]

82. Dude...

of course, you divorce that from the factual context.

Just what I've come to expect from you.

[immune]

87. There is only the "factual context"

that resides inside your head. We all interpret people's words differently, however you often put the worst possible slant on a poster's meaning and intent, which speaks to the motivation and good faith clause in the new DU rule book.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Of course...

"immune" will be unable to post a specific example of this.

More unintentional irony from "immune". Too funny.

[immune]

90. Wow

four posts later and he's already lost the context of the discussion.

[NYMdaveNYI]

91. “Immune” logic:

(or absence thereof)


Pointing out someone’s illogical bullshit is an ad hominem smear.

[defendandprotect]

42. Civility may hit 9/11 yet -- don't give up ... !!!

In fact I alerted on a post in another 9/11 thread -- and it was removed!

Poster calling me "LIAR" -- !!

This had to do with firemen reporting that they had reached the site of "impact"

on upper floors and that they only needed one line -- or one line more -- to put it out!

"That the fire was CONTAINED."

I've posted it numerous time but don't have a link to it at the moment and never did

figure out how to work the archives!!??

Overall, it does seem too often that the debate here consists mainly of incivility!!

We might make this a fit place yet for everyone to enter!!


:evilgrin:

[zappaman]

45. pot...meet kettle

it already is civil since you have everyone on ignore and can post your bullshit freely without having to engage anyone who shows you why what you posted was bullshit.
:rofl:

[terrafirma]

129. Yes, I called you a liar.

There are two options when one continues to spout and parrot debunked "facts" over and over and over again. Lying is one of them....

You use Orio Palmer's words as a way to illustrate that the fires weren't that bad and could be fought with 2 lines, knowing FULL WELL that they had reached only the bottom of the impact zone (78th floor). That is disengenuous at best, considering you willingly ignore images of fires that have engulfed entire floors higher up.

Orio states that there are two isolated pockets of fire (again, on the 78th floor, Stairway A). Should be able to knock it down with two lines. THAT IS TRUE. If you left it at that, we would not be having this debate.

But you don't.

You stretch his words as though he is speaking about the entire tower.

Now... you are either willfully lying, or truly cannot comprehend the difference.

Which is it?


PS - Where in the transcript does it say the fire is "contained"?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/September_11th_FDNY_Radio_Transcripts

[zappaman]

36. is anyone else happy that D & P finally found someone

who embraces the same bullshit she does?
at last, one person she hasn't put on ignore!
:rofl:

[mrarundale]

127. I like D & P

and I think most people here would like to put 3 or 4 of you on "ignore".

[SDuderstadt]

130. Well, of course...

you would, because your "truther echo chamber" gets disrupted with actual facts. Maybe you guys could set up your own website where you can yammer on and on about all the things you guys fabricate, without fear of contradiction.

It's clear you guys aren't really looking for debate.

[zappaman]

131. of course you do

you are just as equally "fact ignorant" as she is.
maybe you can follow her lead and put the majority of DU on ignore?

[zappaman]

29. of course, in D & Ps world...

you don't need evidence or facts

[mrarundale]

44. Don't you think it was planned well in advance of Bush JR?

I mean the Department of (in)Justice* whipped that Patriot Act out pretty darn fast afterward; it would have taken years to write... while we were all distracted by Monica/Jon Benet Ramsey/ and the kidnapped girl in Utah...oh, and Chandra Levy ( I think someone finally found a scapegoat for that)

* The Patriot Act was introduced by Sensenbrenner, who, "coincidentally", chaired the committee to impeach Pres Clinton. I wonder what all those lawmakers were doing while the "news" talked relentlessly about cum stains?...jerking off? or planning to dispense with our civil rights and re-invade the Middle East?

[defendandprotect]

93. Nice analysis .... !!

Too often the corporate-press is only distractions!!

:)

[mrarundale]

38. Does anyone know the first mention of the term "al qaeda"?

One time I looked in the pre-2001 indexes of the major newspapers at the library and, as I recall, I could not find anything about "al qaeda" , so I wonder if "someone" just made it up on 9-11.(and yeah I know about the mujahadeen supposed connection, but, again, that doesn't surface, at least to the public, 'til post 9-11.)
That structural failure guy is hilarious, I always get a good laugh out of that, although, I probably would not have noticed before I started realizing how fake the news media is after 9-11. The bald guy in the suit behind him who is, inexplicably, just standing there looks a lot like the guy being lead by the medics, or whoever, later on..just as a btw....

[zappaman]

39. may 30, 1993

you can't do your own google?
yeah, just keep posting bullshit.
your critical thinking skills, knowledge, and work ethic(can't take 5 seconds to google) is indicative of you and the rest of the troofers.

The term “al-Qaeda” is first mentioned in the international media. An article by the French wire service Agence France-Presse on this day entitled “Jordanian Militants Train in Afghanistan to Confront Regime” uses the term, although it is spelled “Al-Ka’ida.” The article quotes a Jordanian militant who says he has been “trained by Al-Ka’ida, a secret organization in Afghanistan that is financed by a wealthy Saudi businessman who owns a construction firm in Jeddah, Ossama ibn Laden.”

[immune]

46. Plugging

“Jordanian Militants Train in Afghanistan to Confront Regime” into a search engine brings up exactly five references to that article, one of which is 911myths (a debunker site), and one that claims to debunk the French article.

Who to believe? :dilemma:

[mrarundale]

57. critical thinking at work

from the 24/7 "debunkerers";-)

[zappaman]

64. good work Immune

now can you address the other 41,000 hits?

[Make7]

65. She uses the Yahoo.

Interestingly enough, two of the Yahoo results are to a website that immune recently used in another thread. Apparently in this instance that website is not to be trusted.
 

[immune]

69. God, he sounds like he has

surveillance on immune's computer. I sure hope you're not employed in any kind of intel service.

[Make7]

80. You do realize people can read what you post online, don't you?

 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=300974&mesg_id=301229
 

[immune]

118. Isn't it kind of assuming too much

to infer that yahoo is the ONLY search engine I use because I mentioned it once?

[Make7]

119. I did assume you used Yahoo for the search you mentioned in Post #46.

Zappaman mentioned Google in the post that you replied to, but Google returns more than five results which is what you said your search returned. Since you mentioned using Yahoo just a couple of days before that post - and Yahoo returns five results for that search - I thought it more than likely that you used Yahoo.

Perhaps I am mistaken, what search engine did you use for your query in Post #46?
 

[immune]

120. Are you writing a biography?

Don't forget to spell "immune" correctly.

[Make7]

121. I don't find you that interesting.

I noticed that Bing also returns five results for the query you mentioned in post #46, so I guess it is possible that you used Bing for that search. (Although I should mention that the Bing search results are exactly the same as the Yahoo search results so my larger point would still be the same. In fact, pretty much all major search engines will have very similar results so I guess which seach engine you used is pretty much irrelevant to the original point of post #65.)
 

[immune]

68. Link please.

[mrarundale]

53. thank you, but I don't depend on go-ogle

I could not find it indexed in any pre- 2001 U S newspapers AND it was not mentioned in relation to the '93 FBI assisted bombings. Also, as I posted before, the intelligence located in the Pentagon claimed they did not even have "Al qaeda" on their radar prior to their office being bombed, I mean "hit".
I do not post bullshit, and work ethic? it takes a lot longer to go to the library (go now, while they still exist) then to "google".
I have never evidenced "critical thinking" in a single one of your posts. Only desperate insults and subterfuge...

[zappaman]

55. no thank you

for letting everyone know you won't let facts get in the way of your imagination.
oh, and great excuse for not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.
Maybe try the "dog ate my homework" excuse next time.
:rofl:

[immune]

41. I don't recall hearing it

prior to 9/11, but I'd add another question to yours: are there any Muslims anywhere in the world who call themselves al qaeda, or is it just a moniker the US put on them all to demonize generally without having to equivocate between nations and tribes and sects? I think the militants in Afghanistan would refer to themselves as Mujuhadeen and those in Syria/Lebanon probably consider themselves as affiliated with Hizbollah. Too confusing for most people and not very effective for soundbytes.

Remember, back in the old days it didn't matter if the "insurgents" and "illegal combatants" of the day were Sioux, or Blackfeet, or Apache, they were all just lumped together as savage indians to be driven out or wiped out.

We don't change our spots.

[zappaman]

43. can you read?

I posted the info.
but you think that since you can't recall it, then it must not have happened.
unbelievable how someone could be so limited in thinking.
it's easy to see why you are mocked.
:rofl:

[immune]

48. I guess I was supposed to read it

before you posted it.

[zappaman]

50. let's add

"unable to tell time" to the things you can't do.
I posted 15 minutes before your response.

[immune]

51. Are you aware that

posts aren't visible to someone who's in the middle of writing a post?

A person isn't allowed to take a break while writing a post for fear of being ridiculed? Are these your rules? Consider them broken.

[zappaman]

54. are you aware that you said...

"I guess I was supposed to read it before you posted it."
Now you say you didn't see it.
As always, you have an excuse for your bullshit.

[deconstruct911]

56. How would someone read it before you posted it

Duh.

[zappaman]

60. Wow

you can't tell time either?
it was posted 15 minutes before his response.
is there anything you troofers are good at?
god, if BUSHCO really did bring down the towers, they must be so happy that you guys are on the case!!!

[deconstruct911]

63. The timing wasn't my point

I was referring to the actual statement.

[defendandprotect]

52. Well, US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda --

Recall looking for info on orgin of Al Qaeda a long time ago and found it was

an older organization Arabic I think -- which NAZIS took over during WWII.

AFTER WWII, Nazis turned it over to CIA --

During Carter Adminsitration, US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda thru ISI/Pakistan

and financed it up til 9/11, at least.

US/CIA used the Taliban/Al Qaeda to "bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes

of giving them a Vietnam type experience" -- which obviously did happen!

Here's some more info on this by Brzezinski -- etal --


Trust this connects you with appropriate part of my Journal --

two articles -- one on Taliban/Al Qaeda and US creating it --

the other on the violent text books --

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=4426&page=1

It's about a third of the way down in article which begins ....

The right wing wealthy have kept right wing stuff going ---

[mrarundale]

58. yes, good analogy

the victims become the "bad guys". The point is, no one ever heard of Al Q before 9-11 and that is pretty darn weird. I think someone figured out it means the base or database, indicating it is just a bunch of names of "terrorists" (modern day Indians, to use your example), but I can't verify that myself not knowing any Middle eastern languages!

[zappaman]

61. more bullshit

"The point is, no one ever heard of Al Q before 9-11 and that is pretty darn weird"
1993...as posted earlier.
still can't read?
pull your head out of your ass.

[defendandprotect]

47. I know a little bit of its history.... it was an organization floating around which NAZIS took

over during WWII -- and after WWII turned it over to the CIA -- !!

During the Carter administration US/CIA "created" Taliban/Al Qaeda -- financing it

thru ISI/Pakistan -- and used it to "bait the Russians into Afghanistan ... in hopes

of giving the Russians a Vietnam-type experience."

This is according to Brzezinski in his book and as stated to O'Reilly 5 years or more ago!



Evidently US went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians actually came in!!

US/CIA also created, wrote, printed those horrific Islamic text books we heard so much

about on TV -- and we shipped them into the ME to try to create a violent Islamic movement.


Next time I watch the video, I'll look for "bald guy" --




PS: If you want more info on any of this -- this connects to my Journal --

go down about 1/3rd of way to article which begins ...

The right wing wealthy have kept right wing stuff going ---

Two articles follow -- one on US/CIA creating Taliban/Al Qaeda --

The other on our creating those violent Islamic textbooks and shipping them into ME --

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=4426&page=1

[mrarundale]

83. Yeah I've kind of heard about that, but

for the topic of this thread, I was more interested in how suddenly everything was "al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda" after 911 and nothing before, and suddenly all the experts know about it a few minutes after the "attacks".

[defendandprotect]

92. One more of those 9/11 coincidences ... !!!

Understand what you were after now --

apologies for all the info I threw at you!

:)

[Make7]

59. Not the first mention in the American press, but something pre-2001 from the NY Times archive:

AFTER THE ATTACKS; Excerpts From Court Charges: To Terrorists, 'It Was Proper to Kill Americans'

Published: August 28, 1998

    <-snip->

9. On or about Aug. 20, 1998, the defendant stated among other things, the following:

a. That he was trained in a number of camps in Afghanistan, including a number of camps affiliated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist group, led by Osama bin Laden, dedicated to opposing non-Islamic governments with force and violence.

b. The defendant stated that, while in the Afghanistan camps, he was trained in explosives, hijacking, and kidnapping.

c. He attended conferences and meetings with Osama bin Laden, including a press conference, in Khost, Afghanistan, which followed a recent interview of bin Laden by ABC News. The defendant also stated that he was aware of a fatwah against the United States by the International Islamic Front which was signed by Osama bin Laden and the leaders of other jihad groups, stating that it was proper to kill Americans worldwide. . . .


http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/28/world/

 
Edit to add: There are 88 references to articles with the term "al qaeda" prior to September 11, 2001 in the New York Times online archive. (link)
 

[zappaman]

62. nope

this info will just be ignored and they will just prattle on about "I don't recall it ever being mentioned before 9/11 so it must not have been..."
and they wonder why they are mocked...

[mrarundale]

75. that is interesting because

they were not in the non online hardback pre 2001 copyright index that I looked in, and I checked NYTines online before and there were no hits on a variety of spellings. NYTimes seems to have a lot of online revisionist wedding announcements and articles I have noticed over the years.

[mrarundale]

85. "Al Qaeda Does not Exist"

Here is the bibliography from the BBC documentary. People need to figure things out for themselves, here is the sourcing for that doc.:

http://www.alqaedadoesntexist.com/bibliography.html

I didn't mean to detract from the OP, my point is something anyone can recognize...that Al Q was suddenly in the American Media on 911, while it was scarcely (if ever) mentioned before...

[immune]

88. LOL, I had to scroll up and see

WHAT the OP was about. Nothing stays on topic for long around here.

Good stuff. Thanks.

[mrarundale]

125. I know the topic always mysteriously gets derailed

I'm guilty of that too. But I think this is an important one, how "experts" suddenly were blathering incessantly about al q and obl the new "bogeymen".

[wildbilln864]

122. thanks! nt

:hi:

[Swampguana]

132. Sad

If this is true and all these people were aware that this was going to happen then it is a huge shame that these people exist. The fact that they could allow fellow countrymen let alone human beings to die is inhumane.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Operative phrase...

"If this is true". Psst...it isn't.

[Swampguana]

134. Who knows?

There's no way to know for sure what really happened. You have your opinion and I have mine.

[SDuderstadt]

135. Great...

come up with some concrete evidence and, your "opinion" might.taken more seriously.

What a copout.

[Swampguana]

159. okay

I first questioned 911 when I saw zeitgeist. Watch it if you haven't its free online. I don't think I need to say much more than that because people have tried to convince me of what you believe and are not very believable so I leave it to you to try the same. You seem to entice me rather than prove your point.

[SDuderstadt]

170. Why, yes...

now you know the "truth" ...you've seen "Zeitgeist". Did you bother to fact-check "Zeitgeist"? I'll bet you think you know all about the Federal Reserve now, too.

I love the way conspiracists get taken in by all manner of things. What a hoot.

[Swampguana]

173. whatever

just questioning the whole thing is all. If you can't handle that not my problem. So go ahead and enjoy your ignorance it leads to bliss right? bye bye

[SDuderstadt]

174. Did you question "Zeitgeist"?

Ever heard of the logical fallacy known as "false certainty"?

[terrafirma]

177. And there is the other similarity to religion.

Their "holier-than-thou" attitude. THEY are the awesomely smart ones because THEY have the open mind and THEY can see what's really going on and THEY will make the guilty pay when the REVOLUTION COMES!!!

Enjoy your fantasy. You almost had me fooled.

[immune]

178. Where on this sub forum

has anyone said anything about a revolution? The only people I know who talk like that are teapartiers and extreme right wingers and not many of them are 911 truthers. They hate Obama more than they ever hated Bush or his twin wars.

[terrafirma]

180. You do realize

The truth movement extends beyond this sub forum, right?

Just because it wasn't said on here doesnt mean that folks like Alex Jones (for example) haven't parroted the idea..

[immune]

181. I don't spend much time

listening to Alex Jones, but wouldn't he fit better into the right wing catagory than progressive? You're correct in the sense that the truth movement has cut through the lines in the sand of party politics.

But I don't think he's CALLING for a revolution as much as predicting one because government doesn't represent the people, but the corporations.

[Swampguana]

166. added note

I would like to add that movie "Zeitgeist" made me just question all the facts not to totally disregard all of them. I am open to debate but it should be based on the video not on the opinion of what happened as a whole on 911. My thoughts are that this video (the one this forum is about) creates questions that should be discussed. Is it unrealistic that these people knew what happened so quickly after they saw what happened? etc.

[SDuderstadt]

171. It's their take on what happened...

personally, I didn't need anyone on TV to tell me what happened...I quickly suspected it was bin Laden/al Qaeda, based upon the embassy bombings, the attack on the U.S.S. COLE and the Millennium bomb plot.

[zappaman]

136. "There's no way to know for sure what really happened."

wow

[terrafirma]

137. This is the truthers MO...

They look at the subject of 9/11 as more of a belief system, much like religion.

You believe in God. I don't. We all have our opinions.

Unfortunately for them, the events of that day have an explanation that's rooted in evidence, facts, and science. Their inability to understand (or their willingness to ignore) them places their "theories" closer to that of unfounded ideology rather than just mere, harmless "opinions".

[apocalypsehow]

140. This pretty much nails it. From the morbid, creepy obsession with John F. Kennedy to the fanatical

rage at being pointed in the direction of unassailable facts which demolish their shabby edifices of beliefs & theories, most CT'ers behave precisely like fanatical converts on a zealous mission to "convert" the heathen to their dubious stripe of religious doctrine.

Indeed, they are immune to either facts that contradict their world view or a sense of right & wrong in the normal sense, i.e., they don't think "the rules" apply to them when it comes to their interaction with other human beings & institutions; they truly believe, for the most part, that they are exempt from any rules that might hinder the spreading of "the truth" - just like a religious missionary.

Hence, the frequent refusal to abide by the rules and post conspiracy-related OP's in this forum instead of first posting it in GD in open defiance of DU's well-known policy on such OP's.

Hence, the persistent smearing of people who point out the flaws in their "logic" by attempts to link them to Right-wingers, imputations of bad faith and/or disruption, even hints that perhaps the posters opposing them are "paid" to sit on their computers and oppose "the truth."

Hence, the constant appeal to logical fallacies in order to sidestep answering inconvenient questions about facts which completely contradict their assertions.

Hence, the childish belief that having the "last word" constitutes "winning" the debate.

It really is a religious movement, but it has none of the beauty or joy that genuine religions can bring to the true believer - the CT'er world is all ugliness, anger, rage, suspicion, and badly-focused hatred, all wound up in a mythical interpretation of historical events.

Good post. :thumbsup:

[zappaman]

141. kick

couldn't have said it better

[apocalypsehow]

148. Thank you, sir - I aim to please.

:toast:

[terrafirma]

142. Thanks, but...

... yours was WAY better.

:toast:

[apocalypsehow]

149. I don't know about better (wordier for sure, LOL), but I appreciate that.

:toast:

[immune]

146. Do I detect

just a wee bit of rage in your own words? Pot kettle.

BTW, this IS the September 11 forum. So where would you find it appropriate for people who don't believe the official theories to get together to discuss the anomalies of September 11? The dungeon isn't deep enough below the surface for you?

[apocalypsehow]

147. And what is the very first CT'er reply to my Post #140? A logical fallacy, thereby proving my point.

"Do I detect just a wee bit of rage in your own words?"


In this instance, the "you, too" or tu quoque (aka "so's your old man"):

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


Quod erat demonstrandum.


It's such a beautiful thing when people prove my points for me while trying to do the opposite. Sweet. :beer:

[immune]

150. So its okay for you to

pour out your rage, but never for anyone to point the finger back at you because by doing so, it somehow "proves your point"? Ooooookay.

Read your own words back to yourself and tell me you don't come off a little like a wheelbarrow full of grenades with all the pins pulled. Very bad for the blood pressure.

Bring your facts and let's talk like adults.

[zappaman]

152. "Bring your facts and let's talk like adults.'

you go first.

[apocalypsehow]

153. And now the descent into issuing orders on the internets! Better & better. Bonus round: last wordism

Textbook. :thumbsup:

[immune]

154. You said

"they are immune to either facts that contradict their world view"

That's a tall order if you refuse to present some facts and an alternate world view to cure us of our immunity, wouldn't you think?

You can have the last word, champ, directly from your textbook.

[zappaman]

155. here are some facts

On september 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.

The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in NYC, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours due to the fact that fully gassed airliners hat impacted them, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others.

The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C.

The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C.

There were no survivors from any of the flights.

[apocalypsehow]

156. Now, frustrated by an inability to provoke hostility or gain traction, the replier resorts to a

further indulgence in logical fallacies in lieu of an actual counter-argument and/or reasoned response, to wit:

Ignoratio elenchi

"you refuse to present some facts and an alternate world view"


...and...

The ever-popular Tower of Straw

"You can have the last word, champ, directly from your textbook"

Concluding with an ever-so-gentle dollop of personal attack on top, like a rancid cherry.

And that, ladies & gentlemen, is a precise acting-out of my assertions in the post above, done in real time, and in fact (the irony is indeed rich), in reply to it.

I want to thank the replier for living up to every single one of my expectations - and decisively proving my point, to boot. :hi:

[zappaman]

157. unfortunately

the replier is immune to logic and common sense and will most likely have a response that directs attention elsewhere rather than responding to the real issues you have raised.

[zappaman]

190. kick

cuz it's true

[zappaman]

151. lol

:fistbump:

[Swampguana]

165. Hey Original CT'er here

You want my reply to Post #140 please go to post #160

[Swampguana]

160. I am the original CTer

"If this is true and all these people were aware that this was going to happen then it is a huge shame that these people exist. The fact that they could allow fellow countrymen let alone human beings to die is inhumane" "here's no way to know for sure what really happened. You have your opinion and I have mine." These are what I originally post please tell me where my rage is? Isn't this suppose to be a discussion if I violated anything in DU I apologize for doing so. Doesn't the video point out the possibility of 911 not being what it seems to be. The only rage that I feel is from the responses to an outside perspective with an open view.

[Swampguana]

158. nope

People who believe in God are people with beliefs not opinions. I am not religious and hate people who make judgements like you just did about me. I made my decision on 911 based on the numerous people I know who argue both sides as well as videos such as these and zeitgeist which all use evidence, facts, and science to back up their arguments. Perhaps you have been too persuaded by the news which is run by corporations.

[terrafirma]

161. I never said you were religious

I said your "opinions" are like that of a religion.

Your bible is that of YouTube movies like Loose Change, Zeitgeist, and September Clues.

Your evidence/facts/science are no more based in reality than walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, or the Immaculate conception.

Your devil is corporate media, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, any government agency in existence, and anyone who disagrees with you.

[Swampguana]

162. so

enlighten me what is the truth? Am I wrong to question corporate media, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, any government agency? you don't give me anything. this is suppose to be related to the video remember? which is where my first comments came from. I commented on the possibility of the people if they actually were aware of this possibility.

[terrafirma]

163. The truth?

In a nut shell, see post #155. Zappa does a great job with the Readers Digest version.

And no, it's not wrong to question the government and its leaders. But truthers don't just question. They utterly dismiss anything and everything they say as a lie. It's the easiest recourse for them when facts start going against their beliefs.

"It was a government study, so it cant be trusted."

"Bush said it, so it's a lie."

And to say anything is possible...? Well, sure, I guess. But ignoring facts to make ones fantasies "possible" is a bit like religion, is it not?

[Swampguana]

164. okay

Yes those are facts but are they all of the facts? I don't question everything in whats said. it seems to me more like certain factors are left out intentionally. This video is another reason for me to think this way.

When did I say I was a truther? There's no need to make assumptions about me by only know what i wrote here. I never dismissed anything. I said I use videos like zeitgeist as a reason to question the whole truth because I'm open to being convinced either side of the argument.

You bring these quotes in...why? When did I say "It was a government study, so it cant be trusted." or "Bush said it, so it's a lie." I didn't and I don't appreciate you implying I did or would. I could make assumptions about you based on how you sound but I don't and won't because I know nothing about you.

My main point comes back to the video where it seems fishy that the people they point out were so aware of what could of caused 911. If you can convince me how those people were so knowledgable so soon after the events then I am happy to drop the issue and give in to your beliefs in this regard.

[terrafirma]

167. Seriously...?

I never saw that street interview until this YouTube video, which begs the question. :::insert ominous music HERE:::

If EVERYONE missed these "clues", as the OP states, just how effective were they in implanting the cover story? Was everyone in America tuned in to FoxNews at that point in time for that particular segment?? WOW! How did Murdoch pull that one off???

I remember watching that day and thinking, there is no way they are going to be able to put those fires out. They're too big. They're too high up. But... Ive been accused by truthers on being "in on it.". So you be the judge.

But ask yourself. If the perps were just going to blow up the buildings with bombs anyway, why the planes? Why all this extra shit? It's not as if the towers were never bombed before. If you're going to take the time to hire demolition ninjas to secretly plant explosives, why not just do that and use the cover story that they were Muslim demolition ninjas?



... And the quotes weren't to you specifically. It's a general truther sentiment that I was paraphrasing. All I ask is that you use your head, look at the evidence, read the reports, and don't let 10 minute internet videos with sinister music cloud your judgement.

[Swampguana]

168. alright

If they were implanting a cover story they were very effective. But it's a far fetched idea at least with this video.

For "Cover Story 1" I straight up just don't like the fact that he's an actor but it is New York, right? Him being an actor doesn't mean he's acting either and had this prepared like a monologue. He could just be a well spoken person like Actors are trained to be. This doesn't prove anything. cover story 1 dropped.

For the "Cover Story 2" I don't like that he jumps right to the conclusion that a plane crashing right into the building is enough to bring it down but that is what happened they just saw it happen so I would jump to the conclusion as well and I did at the time. I would however like to know whether or not other news stations were reporting the same, I assume they were but it makes me wonder. I don't have anything to claim based on the video to show this is evidence of any sort of a cover up. Cover story 2 dropped

For "Cover Story 3" I partly agree that MSNBC reported does apparently know very quickly it was Bin Laden. I would like to know how they knew it was him so quickly. Seems awfully sudden but still doesn't prove anything. I don't like them using the fact he lives in caves and huts as an argument. He's a terrorist I'm guessing most who would want to kill americans wouldn't live in mansions. Just because he has money doesn't mean he has to live in like rich people do here. His priorities are in killing not fancy luxury items. I drop this story as well

You are right this video doesn't prove anything for what i originally thought. it's so biased that certain people could easy find it as proof like I originally did.

This doesn't effect my view overall but it does change it with the videos I have watched. I will watch zeitgeist again and do it with a less of a biased view however I still feel like there's more to the story than meets the eye.

[terrafirma]

169. C'mon man

"Certainly has the fingerprints of someone like Bin Laden" isn't quite "Bin Laden did this without a doubt," now is it?

Why did his name come up so quick?

Well, gee.... Let's think about that.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Is it possible people thought of him because he declared a war against the West 3 years prior?

::: ominous music :::

[Swampguana]

172. C'mon right back

Well I'm positive he wasn't the only person/group to declare war on America. I didn't hear any other names mentioned, jumpin the gun a little bit don't you think? America really doesn't have the best global reputation unfortunately and people as stubborn as yourself really don't help the problem because you aren't open to ideas outside your own mindset. There's nothing wrong with an open mind. I know this won't end so I am closing my mind to your ignorance. You won't hear from me again enjoy your high horse.

[SDuderstadt]

175. "I am closing my mind to your ignorance"

Unintentionally ironic post of the year!

[Swampguana]

192. k

can't handle a little taste of your own medicine? You closed your mind a long time ago. I am CLOSING it, hence it was open for reasoning which can't be reached.

[SDuderstadt]

201. How is asking for concrete evidence...

having closed my mind, dude?

[Swampguana]

202. with your first post

"Pssst.... it isn't" pretty clear where you stood...I left it open "If this is true and all these people were aware...."

[SDuderstadt]

204. Based upon the evidence...

dude.

Feel free to present yours

[terrafirma]

176. Who else openly declared war on the West?

It's a serious question.

[Swampguana]

191. a lot of people hate us

Al-Jihad a.k.a. Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Jihad Group, Islamic Jihad
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
Revolutionary Nuclei (RN) a.k.a. Revolutionary Cells
Revolutionary Organization 17 November
Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)
Morzanist Patriotic Front (FPM)
Japanese Red Army (JRA) a.k.a. Anti-Imperialist International Brigade (AIIB)
Hezbollah (Party of God) a.k.a. Islamic Jihad,
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)

You don't have to openly declare war to perform a terrorist attack in fact
it'd be more effective not to.

[terrafirma]

193. Moving goal posts

Of course people hate us. You stated you were positive other groups had declared war.

But regardless, don't you think it would make sense for the commentator to bring up bin Laden since he was the one that DID declare war?

[immune]

179. What questions

do you consider appropriate to ask government? And who is qualified to ask those questions? What protocol must one follow to question the leaders? Should questioners just accept whatever bullshit answers they're given and go away satisfied?

Do you think it was appropriate for Thomas Kean to question the veracity of some of the information the commission was given during the hearings? He did, you know. But we shouldn't.

As far as 911 truth being "a religion" is concerned, what kind of upside down world do you live in? What are skeptics of the official prognostications told? Go read the reports. What are religious skeptics told? "Its all in the bible". The main foundation of any religion is a belief in cocked up writings, doctrine and dogma that must be accepted on faith, not evidence. Does that not describe those who believe in the official story much better than it does those who question it? Truthers more closely resemble the agnostics, the atheists, the pagans and heathens of religious theology. True believers detest a doubter's "sacreligiousity", as is always the case with evangelical fanatics.

[terrafirma]

182. You missed the point...

Ask anything. Question everything. I don't care.

But when you simply dismiss anything and everything the government tells you because it's "the government" (which is what most of the arguments inevitably boil down to when truthers cant refute the facts), it really brings into question how legitimate your search for the truth is.

And in regards to the religion thing, the facts and evidence you speak of aren't really on your side.

[immune]

183. So do you deny

the "randomly" picked fellow in the OP was a bush croney with a big resume? Was it really just a freak accident, or was he primed and ready to spew the government meme for a rapt and horrified audience before the last brick fell? That's a fact that the official side can't refute who and what this "witness" is, although they certainly didn't rattle off his credentials when the news channels played the interview. Just a guy on the street. Some people might find that a little hinky.

And yeah, terrafirma, we only have thousands of years of recorded history of official religions and dynasties battling skeptics and refusniks to provide all the evidence it requires.

[terrafirma]

184. I don't make any judgements

on that lone interview, because it was just that. A lone interview. On one network. For about a minute.

If I was the one trying to insert an idea into the minds of the pubic, I would've chosen someone well known and booked him on as many networks as possible to get the message out.

You guys find these small, isolated incidents and twist them into proof of something without regard for logic of any kind.

[immune]

185. The video isn't attempting to "make a case".

and to date all there is is circumstantial evidence, no one denies that. But do you know how many convictions there are each year that started with nothing but suspicion and circumstantial evidence? If there is a case to be made and the investigators are doing their jobs, small isolated incidents pile higher and deeper until there is a case.

[terrafirma]

186. So why post it?

Are there truther lawyers lurking here just waiting for more circumstantial evidence to bring to trial?

And when is that happening again? You guys have more than enough proof by now, right?

[immune]

187. Its information.

Do you have a problem with information about September 11 being posted in the September 11 forum? Get real.

What do you really want from us, terrafirma? Silence? Sorry, that's what isn't happenin'.

[zappaman]

189. It's not information

it's bullshit speculation based on nothing.

[terrafirma]

194. What do I want?

Some logic from your side of the field. Maybe some new "smoking guns" would be fun (this old stuff gets boring after awhile). A little courage to go with your convictions would be sweet. (I mean, let's face it. Knowing 9/11 to be the sham it is, and just chatting about it on an Internet forum seems counter productive.)

And a puppy.

[immune]

196. I've

raised enough kids in my life to recognize whining when I hear it. "I'm bored", "you never let me have any fun", "all my friends get to do that, why won't you let me do that?" (junior logic).

Like I told them, no one appointed me your entertainment committee, if you're so bored, go wash my truck. And then you can go clean out the horse stalls. No puppy, you'd be bored with that in two weeks and I'd end up taking care of it. They usually found something else "more fun" to do.

And I'm sure you could find more "fun" things to do, too, than hanging around here watching the grass grow, like maybe you could go track Bin Laden down and be a hero. I hear he's living it up in some mansion over in Pakistan and it'd sure be good to know who's paying his rent.

[terrafirma]

197. I admit

I do have a twisted fascination with you truthers. Boredom isn't a word that would apply to you. So while you are correct that no one appointed you my personal court jester, you and your buds have no doubt filled the role nicely.

I guess what Im saying is, it'd be nice if you guys played something off of your new album instead of putting your greatest hits on a never ending loop. That's not to say those tunes aren't entertaining, just anxious to hear what's next.

[immune]

198. Well for Pete's sake

make up your mind. You're bored or you're fascinated? Or are you really just that confused?

Unfortunately you seldom say anything that adds one whit to the overall knowledge base, so I'll bid you a good day and go do something "fun".

Let us know when you find out who's paying OBL's rent.

[terrafirma]

199. I will do so

just as soon as you let us know who planted the mini-nukes/bombs/thermite.

[terrafirma]

200. And just so you know

there's a difference between being bored, and being bored with the same arguments.

[Swampguana]

203. sounds like a good plan to me

I'm gonna follow your lead and find something fun as well

[SDuderstadt]

205. Well, at least "immune" used...

the word "who's" properly this time.

We are making SOME progress, at least.

[zappaman]

195. in case you are immune to facts

here they are again...

On september 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.

The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in NYC, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours due to the fact that fully gassed airliners hat impacted them, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others.

The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C.

The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C.

There were no survivors from any of the flights.

[immune]

206. That's a supposition, not a fact.

sup·po·si·tion (sup′ə zis̸h′ən)

noun

1.the act of supposing
2.something supposed; assumption; hypothesis

Here's a real fact for you:

"In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/16/23612/2903

[zappaman]

207. lol

once again demonstrating immunity to facts?
yes, your posts are all suppositions.

[immune]

138. "Incoming"

I hope you brought your teflon undies to the party.

:hi:

[terrafirma]

139. Awww....

... did you go ahead and take a play out of D&P's playbook and report my post?

Here I thought it was quite civil. I didn't even swear once!

[immune]

143. Why would I do that?

I think everybody should be able to fly their colors freely for all to see. It isn't that hard to tell if someone's argument is genuine or if its a singular or a coordinated effort to smear and defame those who hold opposing views.

And when somebody decides to open the old pie hole and a little pink fool peeks out and waves at the public, who am I to stop them from removing all doubt by shoving their words out of the view of bystanders?

Of course there are a few posters wherever one goes who keep their trigger fingers poised over the alert buttons just waiting for any "infraction" or "hurt feeling" to shut down open debate, and I suppose there are some who will try to fight fire with fire.

Meh.

[terrafirma]

144. In all fairness...

D&P was right to report the post of mine that she did.

It was out of line.

[immune]

145. Agreed.

Its possible to go over the top and you did. Water over the dam.