Call me a Twoofer I guess.

[Bluekush623]

STOP NAME BASHING DEBUNKERS, IT DOES NOTHING WHEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EDUCATING AND TEACHING US TWOOFERS, K? K..

Ok since again no one can read properly. I cant back there claims 100% and name what they do.

Just like the Twoofers are told to go read the 9/11 report and NIST.

Then by default debunkers must also watch/read/listen to the Movie and Andrews Podcasts then.Gotta be fair and listen too as much info from both sides of the story.


Then come up with evidence that disproves their money trail.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Guess i was completely wrong and actually foreshadowed all this complete nonsense of picking my words apart and trying too make me feel like a fool.

You did make it awfully easy.


I laugh at everyone here at this site that believes the world is in the correct direction or that we still should leave it to our leaders.

Listen I'm as paranoid about the actions of our government as the next person, but I don't go off with no evidence. You don't trust the government? Fine, I don't blame you. But spend your time on reality and not some fantasy.


Take loose change, zeitgiest and the other films and all you guys do is bash them because it doesnt fit what weve been told and how the world operates. These films even if they dont hold all truth atleast make the viewer start questioning what they have been told.

This sounds a lot like the noble lie. That lying to people is ok if it gets them to think about things. I read things like this all the time, its call fiction. But when you present fiction as reality you get into trouble.


Its the 21st century and we have SERIOUS problems here that cant be solved, we still have churches, growing federal government, illegal drugs, Our bill of rights and constitution are being put in jeopardy to secure freedom, then were still relying on institutions and donations to rid of all the unnecessary disease and famine going on at home(earth), all while we depend on others, government, and leaders to solve this problem for us. When the hell are Americans gunna wake up from this materialistic, egotistical, masculine illusion.

I agree but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


Other then that i dont know what too say, time to go back too 3rd grade and retake spelling i guess. and everyone else have a merry journey through life, let experience lead the way.

I sympathize with you, my spelling is horrible. I recommend downloading a spell checker addon for your browser. They are not the best but they are easy to use. Also it is good if you reread what you typed once before you submit it to make sure it is relatively cohesive.

LLH

[A W Smith]

Haha nice try though. So do you agree with the war on drugs?

Whether you do or not. Its my body i can do whatever i dream of with it. End of argument, the war on drugs is a scam/conspiracy.

How idiotic, How irresponsible. The only "conspiracy" is the Columbian drug lords murdering scores of police, politicians, prosecutors in their country
and the gangs of thugs murdering each other here in this county to get you the drugs you crave to destroy the vessel that used to contain your brain. Go ahead though. Continue to destroy yourself with drugs. When it comes to making a living and thinking in the competitive world. You will starve. But maybe ill let you have some table scraps.

[kookbreaker]

thank you for admitting you misread. everyone else needs too also.

:rolleyes:

[Bluekush623]

You did make it awfully easy.



Listen I'm as paranoid about the actions of our government as the next person, but I don't go off with no evidence. You don't trust the government? Fine, I don't blame you. But spend your time on reality and not some fantasy.

well your atleast reasonable. The thing is i provided my "evidence" of the money trail with WKJO/Andrew Grove. I am spending time on reality, The war on terrorism and the war on drugs. If this is fantasy holy smokes is it as real as it can get.

This sounds a lot like the noble lie. That lying to people is ok if it gets them to think about things. I read things like this all the time, its call fiction. But when you present fiction as reality you get into trouble.

Religion, Government, Media all haved lied and trapped us in a fictional illusion.

Jesus never lived, We no longer live in common law and whats been the last accurate report youve heard on the news.


I agree but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

what does it have to with the price?


I sympathize with you, my spelling is horrible. I recommend downloading a spell checker addon for your browser. They are not the best but they are easy to use. Also it is good if you reread what you typed once before you submit it to make sure it is relatively cohesive.

believe me i reread everything twice or more.

[kookbreaker]

Double post.

[mortimer]

idiots i swear

STOP NAME BASHING DEBUNKERS, IT DOES NOTHING WHEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EDUCATING AND TEACHING US TWOOFERS, K? K..

Is "name bashing" reserved only for your side to use?

[Childlike Empress]

@childlike Emptiness

You have had almost seven years to present real evidence. We have asked your movement to produce it. Every time. In just about every thread here. You have failed. Don't blame skeptics for the failure of the truther movement. You yourself have contributed nothing. Just smug empty comments like some petulant troother girlfriend. You have never debated the science here. You have never debated the physical, video, or photographic evidence here. Your mission seems to be just jumping in a thread to defend anyone who may appear to hold your world view. No matter how incoherent or delusional. Time to grow up little girl.


I should report you for mocking my username, but ok i don't care. As i've told you, the only area involving math and science concerning the problem of the unsolved crime of 911 is the alleged CD. Discuss this with someone else.

The corruption of your foreign policy is maybe shown the best in the recent declarance of "independence" of Kosovo. This idea is completely insane. What we get here is a mafia state, Hashim Thaci being the head of this state, a murderer, a kingpin of organized crime - this state of Kosovo will be in fact the entity that ensures the drug traffic from "democratic" Afghanistan to Europe. Thank you for "liberating" these thugs.

What that has to do with 911? You can sell everything to TV America, as long as you make them feel good about it.

The albanian UCK(=KLA) is by the way the german little part of "Al Qaida".

[maccy]

Plato said Im the wisest man in Athens because I know I dont know. So how does all your information give you the permission to name call and dismiss other claims, since theres obvisously no way you or your info can be wrong?

For anybody wondering:

Plato didn't say this about himself - he had Socrates say something similar (but not the same) as a way of defining Socratic ignorance (http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/plato/socrates.htm#Ignorance), the starting point of the Socratic method (http://www.socraticmethod.net/). Here's a quote from Plato's Apology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_%28Plato%29):

I reflected as I walked away, Well, I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of, but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.source: http://www.btinternet.com/~socratic/excerpt.htm (http://www.btinternet.com/%7Esocratic/excerpt.htm)

Most emphatically, Socrates/Plato is not saying ignorance is wisdom or that information has no value, as Bluekush623 wants to claim. And even if he were saying this, without analysis and argument, Bluekush623 is doing nothing more than appealing to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html).

The point that Socrates/Plato is making is that no assertion should go unchallenged, we should investigate on what basis we believe something to be true. This is the basis of critical thinking and of much of the more rational discussion that occurs on this forum.

A Socratic dialogue, using Socratic ignorance as its starting point, might go something like this:

Bluekush: Al Qaeda is a drug cartel.

Maccy: Is it? I didn't know that. How can you be sure?

Bluekush: It's in the movie "Who Killed John O'Neill?".

Maccy: And how do I know that the movie is correct about this?

etc...


If anybody feels like taking on the task of teasing Bluekush's arguments out from his incoherent rambling (a task he seems woefully incapable of himself), then these links may provide a starting point:

WKJO is "Who Killed John O'Neill", a fictional film speculating about 9/11. Website:

http://wkjo.com/

A couple of Screw Loose Change posts about it:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/if-dylan-had-done-his-fictional-film.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/new-al-jazeera-video-shows-bin-laden.html

Richard Andrew Grove has a site here:

http://www.8thestate.com/?page_id=45

Again, some discussion on Screw Loose Change:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/these-people-watch-way-too-many-movies.html

And on this forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93442

At least part of the "Truth Movement" thinks he's disinfo:

http://www.takeourworldback.com/short/grove.htm

Bluekush says he wants to talk about these things but I suspect he just wants to blather for a bit and then run away claiming that his points haven't been answered.

Meanwhile, the world carries on, unchanged.

ETA: Pardalis and others have already covered a lot of the above - but I think it was worth taking the time to get the Plato stuff right.

[johnny karate]

No, it hasn't to do anything with math and science. The only bit that requires understanding in math and science is the alleged controlled demoliton of the WTCs. In my opinion, this is a red herring, and this is what you focus on because that is the world you understand.

Call them what you will, but these so-called "red herrings" that are presented as part of the official story stand as uncontested and widely accepted by the scientific community. I don't find it surprising that the person who has so much disdain for the science and math involved is the one who has absolutely none in support of their case.

All the other points have to do with politics and criminal investigation, with networks that existed before 9/11 and exist to this very day. See Sibel Edmond's case and how it is misrepresented on this forum. Laughable. Here is a recent radio discussion about the network she blow the whistle on (and which is apparently connected to 911 AND the Valerie Plame case):

Daniel Ellsberg, famous leaker of the Pentagon Papers, and Chris Deliso, of Balkanalysis.com, discuss the case of FBI translator-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and the international crime rings she exposed.

http://dissentradio.com/radio/08_02_20_delisoellsberg.mp3

And yet no one from your movement has been able to take this Sibel Edmonds bombshell and parlay it into a new 9/11 investigation. I wonder why?

[Pardalis]

All the other points have to do with politics and criminal investigation, with networks that existed before 9/11 and exist to this very day. See Sibel Edmond's case and how it is misrepresented on this forum. Laughable. Here is a recent radio discussion about the network she blow the whistle on (and which is apparently connected to 911 AND the Valerie Plame case):

Daniel Ellsberg, famous leaker of the Pentagon Papers, and Chris Deliso, of Balkanalysis.com, discuss the case of FBI translator-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and the international crime rings she exposed.

http://dissentradio.com/radio/08_02_20_delisoellsberg.mp3


Then why don't you start a thread about it instead of being antagonistic and secretive.

I sure would like to learn more about all that, but I still don't see a connection between 9/11 being an "inside job" and this alledged nuclear black market. If anything, it shows that AQ could have nuclear capabilities, and therefore the war on terror is justified and even paramount.

[Pardalis]

Childlike, I also would like you to answer me this question I've already asked you in the past and you never acknowledged.

Since you feel alot of the claims of the TM are disinfo, then shouldn't you be glad that debunkers are confronting these false claims? In effect, we are helping you get to the real "truth" by picking apart the junk, we are actually doing you a favor.

[Childlike Empress]

Call them what you will, but these so-called "red herrings" that are presented as part of the official story stand as uncontested and widely accepted by the scientific community. I don't find it surprising that the person who has so much disdain for the science and math involved is the one who has absolutely none in support of their case.

If this is not just an internet argument, you should aknowledege that your "debunker" ilk focused on the material aspects of the mess (and did a great job, don't get me wrong) but ignored the other acpects like f.e. the forewarnings and the standdown of the defense system (spare me your analysis from the other part of the world, gumboot).

And yet no one from your movement has been able to take this Sibel Edmonds bombshell and parlay it into a new 9/11 investigation. I wonder why?

The british press is doing a quite good job these days (but, as a conspiracist, i of course notice that the owner of "Times" is Rupert Murdoch).

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike, I also would like you to answer me this question I've already asked you in the past and you never acknowledged.

Since you feel alot of the claims of the TM are disinfo, then shouldn't you be glad that debunkers are confronting these false claims? In effect, we are helping you get to the real "truth" by picking apart the junk, we are actually doing you a favor.


In part i'm glad about it and i've told you that before. It simply isn't enough for me.

[HyJinX]

why?

[MIKILLINI]

Awesome, Everyone..Seeing how everyone is sticking to pointing out how the anomalies are already debunked, I know that. If you didn't understand me say that in the OP that these anomalies don't matter, are waste time, and are unprovable unless if everyone is pushing the 9/11 report and NIST as official truth, is because we will never know exactly what caused the towers too fall and what happened in the building. All the anomalies do is describe what looks like IDEA of it being a Controlled Demo.

But as me not being an engineer or physicists i cant 100% back up any theory because i have no knowledge about the topics.

But again most of my post wasnt all about the anomalies, but hey thats all the debunkers focus on. And please people I dont care how long youve been here trying to explain to people, if you cant add something Intelligible to the thread dont post, save yourself some time if you really want too. If you are so past it then move on, cause obviously all of us arent. And wow 9/11 was 8 years ago case solved and shut, the terrorists did it so stop talking about it, i guess we should forget anything that has happened in our History be 9/11. Cmon you Critical thinkers i know you can do better then this. I also love how you guys nitpick my words though then have different posts trying to flame me for spelling or in cohesiveness, which does nothing because bad grammar doesnt withdraw someones statements.

Although no one here wants to comment on WKJO/Andrew Grove Money trail and goto Thinkfree.ca to learn about how weve have been duped by our government , i kinda get the idea though. Bash what u can then forget the other stuff, kinda what the CT'ers do
I think its called nit picking. Although there were some valuable posts with drug war info ill have to take a look b4 i can respond.

Im just here to communicate people, stop being so serious.

First of all, if you are going to be communicating by bringing in the same old speculative things which have been debunked ad nausem, then you should expect the same results. Theres nothing new or different.

What I bolded above in your post is to indicate how ineffective your communicating is so far.

[Pardalis]

In part i'm glad about it and i've told you that before.

I honestly don't remember you doing that, all I remember you doing is popping in every once and a while criticizing Gravy and being antagonistic towards us.

It simply isn't enough for me.Then OK, if it's not your cup of tea to debunk these claims then don't do it. Focus on discussing openly what you really want to talk about, without the attitude.

I'm all ears.

[gumboot]

If this is not just an internet argument, you should aknowledege that your "debunker" ilk focused on the material aspects of the mess (and did a great job, don't get me wrong) but ignored the other acpects like f.e. the forewarnings and the standdown of the defense system (spare me your analysis from the other part of the world, gumboot).


:jaw-dropp

I think that's the first actual claim you have ever made... :faint:

[Childlike Empress]

I honestly don't remember you doing that, all I remember you doing is popping in every once and a while criticizing Gravy and being antagonistic towards us.

Cognitive dissonance. If you don't believe me that i've told you this before - and want me to produce evidence, just say so.

As long as i can't see any progress in your train of thoughts, presented here, i.e. as long as you don't even bother to answer my question about if you've read the -single- book i recommended to you after you've asked me to tell you "what's really going on" - how shall i take you seriously?

[Pardalis]

Cognitive dissonance. If you don't believe me that i've told you this before - and want me to produce evidence, just say so.

Again with the attitude. I said I don't remember you doing that, if you did, it was probably in a quick line in a post riddled with antagonism.

As long as i can't see any progress in your train of thoughts, presented here, i.e. as long as you don't even bother to answer my question about if you've read the -single- book i recommended to you after you've asked me to tell you "what's really going on" - how shall i take you seriously?

I asked you what was it about the book you found interesting, you never answered. I'm not going to read a book without some idea of why I should read it.

[Childlike Empress]

:jaw-dropp

I think that's the first actual claim you have ever made... :faint:

Well i'm sorry that i didn't answer to your posts in other threads - as i have promised -, but i found it to be a waste of time. Not neccessarily because you're wrong, but because we both don't know if we are right and i'm not particulary interested in this topic.

Sorry. But it's interesting that you show up a few minutes after i've mentioned you.. :eek:

[Bluekush623]

For anybody wondering:

Plato didn't say this about himself - he had Socrates say something similar (but not the same) as a way of defining Socratic ignorance (http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/plato/socrates.htm#Ignorance), the starting point of the Socratic method (http://www.socraticmethod.net/). Here's a quote from Plato's Apology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_%28Plato%29):

source: http://www.btinternet.com/~socratic/excerpt.htm (http://www.btinternet.com/%7Esocratic/excerpt.htm)

Most emphatically, Socrates/Plato is not saying ignorance is wisdom or that information has no value, as Bluekush623 wants to claim. And even if he were saying this, without analysis and argument, Bluekush623 is doing nothing more than appealing to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html).

The point that Socrates/Plato is making is that no assertion should go unchallenged, we should investigate on what basis we believe something to be true. This is the basis of critical thinking and of much of the more rational discussion that occurs on this forum.

Thats exactly what i mean.



A Socratic dialogue, using Socratic ignorance as its starting point, might go something like this:

Bluekush: Al Qaeda is a drug cartel.

Maccy: Is it? I didn't know that. How can you be sure?

Bluekush: It's in the movie "Who Killed John O'Neill?".

Maccy: And how do I know that the movie is correct about this?

etc...


If anybody feels like taking on the task of teasing Bluekush's arguments out from his incoherent rambling (a task he seems woefully incapable of himself), then these links may provide a starting point:

WKJO is "Who Killed John O'Neill", a fictional film speculating about 9/11. Website:

http://wkjo.com/

A couple of Screw Loose Change posts about it:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/if-dylan-had-done-his-fictional-film.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/new-al-jazeera-video-shows-bin-laden.html

Umm the producer Ty Rauber is claiming his film WKJO as factual.Probably labeled as fictional due to the setting because of the 7 personalities.

But those 2 links dont provide nothing substantial.Moving On.
Richard Andrew Grove has a site here:

http://www.8thestate.com/?page_id=45

Again, some discussion on Screw Loose Change:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/these-people-watch-way-too-many-movies.html

And on this forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93442

At least part of the "Truth Movement" thinks he's disinfo:

http://www.takeourworldback.com/short/grove.htm

Bluekush says he wants to talk about these things but I suspect he just wants to blather for a bit and then run away claiming that his points haven't been answered.

Meanwhile, the world carries on, unchanged.

ETA: Pardalis and others have already covered a lot of the above - but I think it was worth taking the time to get the Plato stuff right.

Nothing really substantial again, Last article was interesting, although i cant fully believe him since he refutes Shamanism.But that doesnt mean his other info isnt true.

nice and simple post.Remember though im on the fence with 9/11, so dont take my words as an argument for either side.

Now you gotta blame my 101 philosophy class for the Plato uh-oh, they are teaching things way too simple nowadays i guess.

[X]

I hope you are able to mock this post in a year or two. :(

Childlike Empress: Your position is beginning to sound very much like a secretive doomsday-cult religion.


Cmon you THINKERS

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't know about that.
The utter dearth of evidence of explosives strikes me as pretty darn good evidence for the absence thereof.



This thread was an interesting slog.
I was laughin out loud at some points.
I wonder if anyone in it has any clue what it's about?
(Yes, I include Bluekush623 in that question, as I seriously doubt he knows what he's saying.)


Bluekush: Please, type your post in a word editor and do a spelling/grammar check before posting. This will help forestall further argument and misunderstanding.
Because, to be honest, most of us don't a clue what you are trying to say. Your posts jump all over the place like a child with ADHD, and you expect us to find a specific couple arbitrary sentences out of it, and somehow infer your meaning from the vast wasteland of nonsense that makes up your posts. Lunacy.
How are we supposed to know what obscure intepretation of a random sentence to respond to?

[Childlike Empress]

Again with the attitude. I said I don't remember you doing that, if you did, it was probably in a quick line in a post riddled with antagonism.



I asked you what was it about the book you found interesting, you never answered. I'm not going to read a book without some idea of why I should read it.


Is it about me or about "what's going on"? I hope you've realized that my avatar is not a picture of me, so you following your beuteschema is a sad picture.

[Pardalis]

Is it about me or about "what's going on"? I hope you've realized that my avatar is not a picture of me, so you following your beuteschema is a sad picture.

I've seen Karina lots of times, Alphaville comes to mind. Why don't you discuss what's "going on" in a thread, in a polite and constructive manner?

[gumboot]

Sorry. But it's interesting that you show up a few minutes after i've mentioned you.. :eek:


Don't get excited. I just got home from work and am filling time until I head out again. You don't have paranormal abilities.

[Bluekush623]

First of all, if you are going to be communicating by bringing in the same old speculative things which have been debunked ad nausem, then you should expect the same results. Theres nothing new or different.

What I bolded above in your post is to indicate how ineffective your communicating is so far.

we have someone else who hasnt fully read and understood the OP.

[Childlike Empress]

Don't get excited. I just got home from work and am filling time until I head out again. You don't have paranormal abilities.


Oh, after inventing the nickname "Buckley Jr. Jr." for pomeroo without knowing much about Buckley and then reading -after Buckley died- that pom indeed admired the man and had met him several times, i'm planing on getting the million now - can't hurt.

Sorry, Bluekush, for intervening, you have the audience and the ridicule for you again now.

[gumboot]

Oh, after inventing the nickname "Buckley Jr. Jr." for pomeroo without knowing much about Buckley and then reading -after Buckley died- that pom indeed admired the man and had met him several times, i'm planing on getting the million now - can't hurt.


I wish you the best of luck.

[Childlike Empress]

SETA: Oh, I see ChildlikeEmpress has come out to play. Hey CE, is Richard Andrew Grove disinfo, or just a mental case?


He is at least dishonest. I had an very telling encounter with him.

[MIKILLINI]

we have someone else who hasnt fully read and understood the OP.

Seriously "A Twoofer I guess", if you are a fence sitter, then get directly to the events on 9/11 that causes your skepticism. Direct questions of inquiry can get you direct answers around here, it's that simple.

[Travis]

Bluekush623, could you indulge me and perhaps list everyone you think is a suspect in planning/executing 9-11 as well as their motives?

They don't have to be in any sort of order, it would just be helpful if you laid out what you feel the possibilities are so that, in the interest of creating civil discourse, we could examine the various plausibilities.

[maccy]

I watched a few minutes of Who Killed John O'Neill - it's very hard going (and because it's deep and complex, but because it's staggeringly badly made - who thought multiple overlapping voices was a good idea?).

Anyway, they have subtitles, which you can look at here (http://www.deadartmedia.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=5&chapter=0&zenid=oi96jkgnurdv6frqs4jajtdf01), if anyone wants to pick a particular assertion of fact and debunk it (or ask BlueKush to supply some evidence for it).

[gumboot]

I watched a few minutes of Who Killed John O'Neill - it's very hard going (and because it's deep and complex, but because it's staggeringly badly made - who thought multiple overlapping voices was a good idea?


That would be Steven Spielberg. However he has the technical skill to pull it off.

[Dave Rogers]

if you cant add something Intelligible to the thread dont post,

:i:

Dave

[chillzero]

Please raise the levels of civility here. Stop bickering and name calling. Several posts moved to AAH.

[Dave Rogers]

ugh i feel for you wildcat, please read. Once again I came here too discuss WKJO/Andrew Grove Money trail, but all you JREFers STILL miss that point.

Let me just point out a couple of things that may have escaped your notice, Bluekush, although since they concern your own writings it's hard to see why.

You posted a 1028 word OP (word count from pasting the text into MS word) that contained only a single question, at the end of the first paragraph:

How was it even possible?

Somewhere in the middle of this torrent of long-debunked fallacies you inserted 13 words that, you now tell us, deal with the one point you actually came here to discuss:

Too follow the "money trail" I feel Who killed John Oneil and don't brush it of since its a "fictional" film dealing with facts, is a vital film. Ty Rauber one of creators promotes the film as "evidence" and also whistle blower Andrew Grove gets into alot of the same companies.

(Note: It would be 14 words if your use of English was a bit better.)

A couple of quick questions:

Firstly, how exactly did you expect us to work out which 1.3% of your OP was the relevant part and filter out the 98.7% that dealt with issues which you have no interest in discussing? One typical way of doing this is to ask a question somewhere in the post, but as I've pointed out your only question was in the 98.7% that you presumably didn't want anyone to read.

Secondly, why did you bother to post the remaining 1015 words?

Dave

[johnny karate]

If this is not just an internet argument, you should aknowledege that your "debunker" ilk focused on the material aspects of the mess (and did a great job, don't get me wrong) but ignored the other acpects like f.e. the forewarnings and the standdown of the defense system

The same standards of evidence apply no matter what aspect of 9/11 we are discussing. If you have something substantial to present regarding forewarnings, stand down orders, or whatever, then present it already.

The british press is doing a quite good job these days (but, as a conspiracist, i of course notice that the owner of "Times" is Rupert Murdoch).

But this doesn't equate to an investigation, so you're still back where you started: Nowhere.

The British press covering the Sibel Edmonds story is both good and bad for CTers. Good because a story you believe to be important is getting exposure. Bad because since it's being covered by a major media outlet, it kind of blows the whole "NWO-controlled media" theory out of the water.

And leaves you in the rather awkward position of having to explain why they would be willing to bring something this damning to light, but ignore all the other evidence your movement claims to exist.

[Dave Rogers]

If this is not just an internet argument, you should aknowledege that your "debunker" ilk focused on the material aspects of the mess (and did a great job, don't get me wrong) but ignored the other acpects like f.e. the forewarnings and the standdown of the defense system (spare me your analysis from the other part of the world, gumboot).

Argumentum ad geographam? Are you seriously suggesting that any analysis originating outside the USA is invalid? If so, coverage of the Sibel Edmonds matter in the British press should be discarded by the same argument.

The forewarning and standdown arguments are regularly covered here in detail. If you don't know that, you're not reading the same forum that I am. And if you've somehow missed all those threads and can't be bothered to look for them, go to 911 Myths and you might just notice buttons on the left hand side of every page that say "Foreknowledge" and "Stand down". I think most of us debunkers would very proudly claim Mike as one of our ilk. But then he's not from the USA either, is he? So should we spare you his analysis too?

Do you really expect to gain any credibility by denying the existence of things that are so easily verified?

Dave

[Belz...]

When are government propagandists such as yourself going to stop repeating government propaganda?

You mean "scientific evidence", right ?

[Belz...]

I believed the official 9/11 story at one time. I started to doubt the official story sometime in late 2003. It is hard to say when I became completely convinced, but it has been a couple of years. If I wasn't able to think for myself I would still believe the official 9/11 story.

What makes you think your current stance is an indication that you're thinking "for yourself", since you've most likely taken all this information from people who managed to convince you ?

[Belz...]

You, my friend, are part of the solution.

Childlike, a piece of advice: when you see another poster rant incoherently about something, and even if he happens to agree with you on the basics, you shouldn't associate yourself with him.

[Belz...]

We only have circumstantial evidence, no proof of any alternative theory.

Good, good. So you HAVE some evidence.

Would you mind presenting it ? I've never seen any of your evidence, so I'm sure it'll be far more substantial that the evidence so far presented by truthers. Right ?

There is more than enough evidence that the official story is not complete, to say it very politely.

"Not complete" <> Inside job.

The reason why "my movement" was not able to achieve its primary goals is, in my opinion, because it was infiltrated by snake oil sellers (in part paid by the government).

Why do you think so ? Do you think the "government" is everywhere, now ? Or do you think the truth movement is so incredibly competent that it couldn't fail to achieve its goals without interference ?

[Belz...]

We need to take responsibility for our actions, no one else will. No wonder why everyone oversea thinks were ***** retarded fat asses, and want to fly themselves into buildings to destroy us, freedom and liberty. Because we dont wanna think and do for ourself, because its just too much sacrifice.

I just love how truthers like to see themselves as better than everybody else. You'd swear they're compensating for something...

Blame the Federal Government then for my Education

I don't think so. We've all had the same education, and most of us can tell a number from a verb.


AND FOR THE LASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST TIME WE WILL NEVER TRULY KNOW WHAT BROUGHT DOWN THE BUILDINGS

Actually, we already know.

[twinstead]

My my. Some people's only place in life apparently is to come on this forum and help prove to me that the truth movement is not a movement interested in truth at all, but a method further an ideology.

[Belz...]

No, it hasn't to do anything with math and science. The only bit that requires understanding in math and science is the alleged controlled demoliton of the WTCs. In my opinion, this is a red herring, and this is what you focus on because that is the world you understand.

Childlike, if math or science hasn't got much to do with any of this, do you think intuition will help ?

'Fact is, science has everything to do with every aspect of it.

As long as i can't see any progress in your train of thoughts,

I'm sure even you can see the irony in that, since you haven't progressed much in the last two years, either.

Oh, after inventing the nickname "Buckley Jr. Jr." for pomeroo without knowing much about Buckley and then reading -after Buckley died- that pom indeed admired the man and had met him several times, i'm planing on getting the million now - can't hurt.

You still have time to catch the million dollars if you want.

[Manly Man]

Our government doesnt listen to the people if so we woulda been out of the Middle East by now and Bush and Co. would immediately be impeached or sent to court for war crimes. But people wont stand up for what they have created and just let it run loose because they cant take the blame or fall.

I am tired of seeing the charge that government doesn't "listen to the people" lobbed around. It annoys me when anyone of any persuasion does it, be they Lou Dobbs, Alex Jones, Michael Moore, Ron Paul, etc....but the CT crowd is especially annoying in this respect. What "people" are the government supposed to be listening to? Springer fans? The much reviled segment of the population that watches American Idol? In other words... "sheeple"?

I'm glad we live in a democratically elected REPUBLIC and not a democracy. I'm glad that my congressman doesn't always "listen to the people," because quite frankly, most people are idiots when it comes to public policy.

Call me elitist, I guess....

[fuelair]

Cmon you THINKERS

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That works for flying saucers. Bombs leave evidence - especially the explosives used for CD (and if you argue they weren't normal shaped charges but randome explosives, they can't cut the steel). Barely even cut the cheese in comparison!!

[fuelair]

Why is it that troothers care more about what JREF'ers think of them and very little about what they perceive as the "truth"?
More precisely, if indeed they worry about what we think of them, why do they act like idiots and consistently exhibit inordinate ignorance in our presence? Not the way to win friends and influence people*!!









* c (with a circle around it) Dale Carnegie (dead motivationalist):)

[Minadin]

So how many actual people here can fully in depth explain 9/11 from a real scientific P.O.V maybe 5-10 people who are the engineers/physicists? Or is everyone a engineer/physicist.

For your own personal reference, and since you asked, an extensive (but by no means conclusive) list of the qualifications of various posters may be found here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3230337#post3230337

[Cuddles]

Plato didn't say this about himself - he had Socrates say something similar (but not the same) as a way of defining Socratic ignorance (http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/plato/socrates.htm#Ignorance)

"All we are is dust in the wind, dude."

"I challenge you to find any tangible evidence proving rouge unicorns didn't bring down the twin towers."

OK, own up. Who's been putting makeup on the unicorns again? There'll be no cake for anyone until I find out. Those are valuable NWO property.:mad:

[tsig]

Famous people die or are killed? Funny that doesn't happen to non famous people as well.
And the connection between Lincoln and Hendrix is?

Lincoln freed the slaves?

[Drudgewire]

OK, own up. Who's been putting makeup on the unicorns again? There'll be no cake for anyone until I find out. Those are valuable NWO property.:mad:
Hahaha, I guess I have to blame blue kush for my misspelling of "rogue" last night.

And I don't mean the poster. :cool:

[X]

OK, own up. Who's been putting makeup on the unicorns again? There'll be no cake for anyone until I find out. Those are valuable NWO property.:mad:

Drudge did it!
I saw him!

Give me my cake! NOW!

(Sorry Drudge. All alliances are cancelled when the cake is threatened.)

[Drudgewire]

;3499603'](Sorry Drudge. All alliances are cancelled when the cake is threatened.)
I'd lose all respect for you if you called it any other way. ;)

[tsig]

Time for my favorite analogy:

"I challenge you to find any tangible evidence proving rouge unicorns didn't bring down the twin towers."

And you can't do it, because no ever expects the rogue unicorns and because they're awesome at covering their tracks... dastardly fiends. :mad:

The rebellious pink unicorns did rise against the One True Unicorn and while fightng took town 1&2 with a qick slash of there horns. A backslash of the hoof gor #7 and it was over and OTU looked at her woor and ot were gud.

[tanabear]

Bluekush and tanabear, let's cut right to the chase:

As proponents of the theory that the U.S. government was really behind the 9/11 attacks, what useful and constructive actions have you taken to see that these vicious murderers are brought to justice?

I do whatever I can to convice as many people as possible that the official story is highly questionable and we need to investigate all aspects of the 9/11 crime.

Another question to ask is that if you believe that the attacks were sponsored by Osama bin Laden, then what have you done to bring him to justice? Consider the fact that our current crop of leaders don't seem to concerned about catching him. Bush stated in a press conference just six months after the attacks,

"I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country..."

If Osama bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11 we need to catch him to bring him to justice, whether he is less of a threat should not be an issue.

Why did General Richard Myers say, "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden?"

Do the leaders of our country really act like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the worst terrorist attack in US history, or do they use him as an excuse to wage a fictional "war on terror?"

[beachnut]

There is a 25 million dollar pot of money, go get him. You could get some other truthers like pdoh and Dylan to help look for him and bring him in. Like a CT to find UBL and make some money! The FBI wants him for terrorist acts around the world. He is still a suspect for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks around the world and already wanted for specific terrorist acts.

[Brainache]

I do whatever I can to convice as many people as possible that the official story is highly questionable and we need to investigate all aspects of the 9/11 crime.

Another question to ask is that if you believe that the attacks were sponsored by Osama bin Laden, then what have you done to bring him to justice? Consider the fact that our current crop of leaders don't seem to concerned about catching him. Bush stated in a press conference just six months after the attacks,

"I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country..."

If Osama bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11 we need to catch him to bring him to justice, whether he is less of a threat should not be an issue.

Why did General Richard Myers say, "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden?"

Do the leaders of our country really act like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the worst terrorist attack in US history, or do they use him as an excuse to wage a fictional "war on terror?"

Yeah you are absolutely right. Johnny Karate should go out right now and book a ticket on the next flight to Afghanistan. Because all those soldiers from all those different countries up there in the hills are doing bugger all. They're all just sitting around on their big fat retard asses shooting cans off donkeys and handing out chocolate to the natives.

Bin Laden? Don't you mean Tim Osman the CIA spy?

ETA: What an inauspicious 3000th post...

[GStan]

If Osama bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11 we need to catch him to bring him to justice, whether he is less of a threat should not be an issue.

Why did General Richard Myers say, "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden?"

Do the leaders of our country really act like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the worst terrorist attack in US history, or do they use him as an excuse to wage a fictional "war on terror?"

Tanabear, read the entire interview with Gen. Myers in context here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/06/en.00.html

If you still have questions as to why Gen. Myers said what he said, after reading through the transcript, I'm sure many here would be willing to help you.

[16.5]

"Do the leaders of our country really act like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the worst terrorist attack in US history, or do they use him as an excuse to wage a fictional "war on terror?"

OBL is believed to be in the Tribal regions in Pakistan. So what you are suggesting is that the USA should broaden the war, and attack other countries all in the name of catching one man?

Disingenuousness and hypocrisy. The defining characteristics of the Truth Movement.

[Unsecured Coins]

(Pulling his leg if he has one left after his "service" to the empire)


You knocking war vets now too?

[Childlike Empress]

You knocking war vets now too?


It was more a statement about war than about beachnut. If he felt hurt by it (i don't think he did), i apologize. It wasn't meant personally. It was meant along the line of

War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other. - Paul Valéry

The people of the USA have to understand this.

[Drudgewire]

The people of the USA have to understand this.
We should, seeing how we invented war and everything. :rolleyes:

[Unsecured Coins]

It was more a statement about war than about beachnut. If he felt hurt by it (i don't think he did), i apologize. It wasn't meant personally. It was meant along the line of

War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other. - Paul Valéry

The people of the USA have to understand this.


It offended the hell out of me.

[Architect]

We should, seeing how we invented war and everything. :rolleyes:

You can't have, after all - you turn up late for a lot of them....

;)

[mortimer]

You can't have, after all - you turn up late for a lot of them....

;)

Late? Or just in the nick of time? :D

[Corsair 115]

It was more a statement about war than about beachnut. If he felt hurt by it (i don't think he did), i apologize. It wasn't meant personally. It was meant along the line of

War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other. - Paul Valéry

The people of the USA have to understand this.I'm wondering how Mr. Valéry's quote would apply to WWII...

[Childlike Empress]

I'm wondering how Mr. Valéry's quote would apply to WWII...


Really? It's not that difficult to figure out. But please don't mention THE war. ;)

[Unsecured Coins]

hey, thanks for downplaying what I do. I appreciate that. Truly. From the bottom of my god damn heart.

[MIKILLINI]

My my. Some people's only place in life apparently is to come on this forum and help prove to me that the truth movement is not a movement interested in truth at all, but a method further an ideology.

The term symbolism over substance applies to them. So far, there hasn't been any substance from them in this thread. No surprise here.

[tanabear]

Tanabear, read the entire interview with Gen. Myers in context here:

If you still have questions as to why Gen. Myers said what he said, after reading through the transcript, I'm sure many here would be willing to help you.

I was completely aware of the context in which he made that statement. The fact that I'm aware of the context does not mean that I agree with the opinions he offered. He said that it was not a goal to capture Osama bin Laden, though it might be desirable. The idea that it is more important to go after the middle men because they would be more difficult to replace is his opinion. Once again, Myers is talking about limiting bin Laden's effectiveness. Is it more important to do that, or bring him to justice for the massacre of innocents on 9/11? It sounds more like an excuse not to put the necessary resources behind capturing bin Laden.

"Do the leaders of our country really act like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the worst terrorist attack in US history, or do they use him as an excuse to wage a fictional "war on terror?"

OBL is believed to be in the Tribal regions in Pakistan. So what you are suggesting is that the USA should broaden the war, and attack other countries all in the name of catching one man?

Disingenuousness and hypocrisy. The defining characteristics of the Truth Movement.

Where in my previous post did I suggest a military invasion of Pakistan? I didn't. I suppose anybody can accuse anyone of hyprocisy and disingenuousness if you ascribe motives and opinons to them that they don't actually have. If we wanted to capture bin Laden then obviously there is more than one way to go about accomplishing that goal. Secret clandestine operations by the CIA/ISI would seem a likely possibility. However, do you believe that the goal of the current Administration is to capture/kill bin Laden?

[WildCat]

Secret clandestine operations by the CIA/ISI would seem a likely possibility.
It certainly is. Unfortunately, those groups aren't as all-powerful and all-knowing as you seem to think they are.

[Arus808]

sorry, but you'd be ignorant to think that wars are "no solution".

[rwguinn]

sorry, but you'd be ignorant to think that wars are "no solution".
So, except for overthrowing tyrants and installing rule of law, or eliminating slavery, or removing the foot of oppression from the backs of people, or killing and removing inhumane, genocidal despots from power, what has war ever accomplished?

[tanabear]

You mean "scientific evidence", right ?

What scientific evidence are you referring to? Is this the same kind of "scientific evidence" that provided proof that Saddam was producing and stockpiling WMD in 2002 and 2003?

What makes you think your current stance is an indication that you're thinking "for yourself", since you've most likely taken all this information from people who managed to convince you ?

I came to doubt the government's story because there was scanty evidence that provided support for it's claims. Since I agreed with the official story at one time, and no longer agree with most of its assertions, this shows I change my opinions based on evidence. So what makes you think your current stance is an indication that you're thinking "for yourself?"

[WildCat]

WWII was so long ago, it has no bearing at all on what is happening today... I mean, it's not like Israel is ever in the news. :rolleyes:

[rwguinn]

Where are the boys in their coats of blue
Who flew when their eyes were blind
Was God in town for the Roman games
Was he there when the deals were signed
Who are the kings in their coats of mail
Who rode by the cross to die
Did they all go down into worthiness
Is it wrong for a king to cry
And who are these ones who would have us now
Whose presence in concealed
Whose nature is revealed in a time bomb Gordon Lightfoot, Protocol

[johnny karate]

Just like we germans have no reason to think we are always the evil force, you americans don't have a reason to pretent you are always the good force. WWII is long over and has nothing to do with the current global structure - ok, the structure at the UN is still designed after WWII, i'll give you that.

Stundified!

Seriously, that bolded portion is one of the most fantastically ignorant things I've ever read.

But maybe CE has a point. What good has war ever done? I mean besides granting the U.S. its independence, abolishing slavery, and defeating Nazism and Fascism.

What have you done for us lately, war?

[Arus808]

You are wrong.

nope. you are. as stated, many things happen because of wars. some for the good (for the side you support), sometimes not so good.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

WWII is long over and has nothing to do with the current global structure [...]


Yeah, geez... It's not like the U.S. became a superpower as an almost direct result of the war or anything. :rolleyes:

[Childlike Empress]

nope. you are. as stated, many things happen because of wars. some for the good (for the side you support), sometimes not so good.


Nope, wars are out. You are talking about the past. Ape-like behaviour had to be tolerated sometimes in the past. Not anymore. We can't effort it any longer. Wars are out and you are wrong. :)

[Unsecured Coins]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/1719.jpg

[Arus808]

Nope, wars are out. You are talking about the past.
No we are talking about the present, and the future. Wars will always happen. As long as their is indifference; as long as there are people of various reglious beliefs, political beliefs, hell even skin color, there will be wars. Wars are a solution to social, political and even reglious reason. And wars can be a solution for race issues (that is the bad reason to have a war, but still, its a reason why some wars occur).

Again, you're ignorant to believe that wars are not solutions/


Ape-like behaviour had to be tolerated sometimes in the past.sorry, but fighting each other is an animal behavior. and FYI, APES do not go to war. They do not organize together, nor do they seek out fights. They only fight to protect, and rarely engage with other species of animals except when they feel they are in danger.

So, describing wars as to be "ape-like" behavior, shows more of how ignorant you are, on both WARS and Simians

[WildCat]

and FYI, APES do not go to war. They do not organize together, nor do they seek out fights. They only fight to protect, and rarely engage with other species of animals except when they feel they are in danger.

So, describing wars as to be "ape-like" behavior, shows more of how ignorant you are, on both WARS and Simians
Oh, but they do! Wars between chimpanzee groups are well documented, and often continue until one group is killed off entirely. And they're not the result of simple chance encounters either, but actually planned in advance. There's a lot more in common between apes and humans than you'd think.

eta: here's one such war that lasted 4 years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/01/07/ecfwar07.xml&sSheet=/connected/2

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, but they do! Wars between chimpanzee groups are well documented, and often continue until one group is killed off entirely. And they're not the result of simple chance encounters either, but actually planned in advance. There's a lot more in common between apes and humans than you'd think.

eta: here's one such war that lasted 4 years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/01/07/ecfwar07.xml&sSheet=/connected/2


I've told you so, Arus. Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

[Pardalis]

Oh, but they do! Wars between chimpanzee groups are well documented, and often continue until one group is killed off entirely. And they're not the result of simple chance encounters either, but actually planned in advance. There's a lot more in common between apes and humans than you'd think.

eta: here's one such war that lasted 4 years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/01/07/ecfwar07.xml&sSheet=/connected/2


Now this thread is getting interesting.

Ants also wage wars, they even take prisoners.

http://www.amazon.ca/Journey-Ants-Story-Scientific-Exploration/dp/0674485262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204780147&sr=8-1

[Arus808]

Oh, but they do! Wars between chimpanzee groups are well documented, and often continue until one group is killed off entirely. And they're not the result of simple chance encounters either, but actually planned in advance. There's a lot more in common between apes and humans than you'd think.

eta: here's one such war that lasted 4 years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/01/07/ecfwar07.xml&sSheet=/connected/2


thanks for that correction.

unfortunately for CLE, humans are considered apes, in all sense of the word. so her/his use of ape like behavior is not an insult.

[chillzero]

Stop this bickering right now. I am moving posts to AAH, and if this tone does not change, the whole thread will follow. Stop personalising the argument, and do not attempt to pursue personal questions from a member that does not wish to provide information such as their location.

[1337m4n]

Stop this bickering right now. I am moving posts to AAH, and if this tone does not change, the whole thread will follow. Stop personalising the argument, and do not attempt to pursue personal questions from a member that does not wish to provide information such as their location.

Great. Now you've all angered the Banhammer.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/atiragepro/banhammer.jpg

[Belz...]

I do whatever I can to convice as many people as possible that the official story is highly questionable and we need to investigate all aspects of the 9/11 crime.

Although you seem to have no evidence that this is the case.

Another question to ask is that if you believe that the attacks were sponsored by Osama bin Laden, then what have you done to bring him to justice?

Looking for him, actually. You know you can't really bring someone to trial without finding him, first.

Why did General Richard Myers say, "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden?"

Because, assuming that Ibn Laden is on the run, the focus should be at dismantling potential threats, like operational Al Qaeda cells. You wouldn't spend billions of dollars running after one man.

Do the leaders of our country really act like Osama bin Laden is responsible for the worst terrorist attack in US history, or do they use him as an excuse to wage a fictional "war on terror?"

Why can't it be both ?

[Belz...]

What scientific evidence are you referring to? Is this the same kind of "scientific evidence" that provided proof that Saddam was producing and stockpiling WMD in 2002 and 2003?

Obviously not, since the evidence was wrongly interpreted. Nice try, though. At least now I know what kind of debate tactics you use.

I came to doubt the government's story because there was scanty evidence that provided support for it's claims.

Examples ?

Since I agreed with the official story at one time, and no longer agree with most of its assertions, this shows I change my opinions based on evidence.

Depends what you'll answer to my previous question.

So what makes you think your current stance is an indication that you're thinking "for yourself?"

I never claimed so. You did.

[Belz...]

Nope, wars are out. You are talking about the past. Ape-like behaviour had to be tolerated sometimes in the past. Not anymore. We can't effort it any longer. Wars are out and you are wrong. :)

Wars still happen, Childlike, and some are justified. Please don't take the pacifism too seriously. Extremism never helps.

[Belz...]

I've told you so, Arus. Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Your comment was still wrong, Empress. Humans ARE animals, so making a distinction about something that is more-or-less ubiquitus to the animal kingdom seems kinda foolish.

[Drudgewire]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/1719.jpg
"I want to watch the news."

"This IS the news!"

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/rock.gif

[GStan]

I was completely aware of the context in which he made that statement. The fact that I'm aware of the context does not mean that I agree with the opinions he offered. He said that it was not a goal to capture Osama bin Laden, though it might be desirable. The idea that it is more important to go after the middle men because they would be more difficult to replace is his opinion. Once again, Myers is talking about limiting bin Laden's effectiveness. Is it more important to do that, or bring him to justice for the massacre of innocents on 9/11? It sounds more like an excuse not to put the necessary resources behind capturing bin Laden.


Fine, you disagree with him. Why is this important in the context of a 9/11 conspiracy?

Do you not think it is more prudent to use our resources to comprehensively reduce the ability of al Qeida to attack us again than it is to pursue one person in the interest of justice? Personally, I would prefer adequate protection first over capturing bin Laden.

[fuelair]

It was more a statement about war than about beachnut. If he felt hurt by it (i don't think he did), i apologize. It wasn't meant personally. It was meant along the line of

War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other. - Paul Valéry

The people of the USA have to understand this.
Re the quote: and(even if true) (which it usually isn't) what does it have to do with ignorance, illogic, pointlessness and other qualities/lack of same of any random Imperial posters here??

[tanabear]

It certainly is. Unfortunately, those groups aren't as all-powerful and all-knowing as you seem to think they are.

If I believed the CIA/ISI was omnipotent and omniscient then I would have used the word "certainty" instead of "possibility."

Obviously not, since the evidence was wrongly interpreted. Nice try, though. At least now I know what kind of debate tactics you use.

The evidence was not wrongly interpreted, it was fraudulent. An example would be the Uranium/Niger documents. If a "cabal" is known to have manufactured and used fraudulent evidence, then it is entirely appropriate to question other "evidence" that may have been forged. Yes, I tend to use logic and common sense as my debate tactics.

Fine, you disagree with him. Why is this important in the context of a 9/11 conspiracy?

Do you not think it is more prudent to use our resources to comprehensively reduce the ability of al Qeida to attack us again than it is to pursue one person in the interest of justice? Personally, I would prefer adequate protection first over capturing bin Laden.

The original 9/11 Conspiracy was that it was done by Osama and 19 young Moslems. It is important because it shows our goal is not to capture bin Laden but to use him as a boogeyman. Almost all our resources have gone into Iraq, not in pursuing Al-Qaeda. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars in that ridiculous Easter Egg hunt for Saddam's non-existent WMD.

[Belz...]

The evidence was not wrongly interpreted, it was fraudulent.

And how is that not YOUR interpretation ?

[Drudgewire]

Yes, I tend to use logic and common sense as my debate tactics.
Keep telling yourself that. :p

[aggle-rithm]

WWII was so long ago, it has no bearing at all on what is happening today... I mean, it's not like Israel is ever in the news. :rolleyes:

I assume CE, being German, is not from East Prussia. Thanks to WWII, that would make her Polish, not German.

Plus, you have to have a demolition squad on hand whenever you dig a hole in Berlin. I wonder where all those old bombs came from?

[GStan]

The original 9/11 Conspiracy was that it was done by Osama and 19 young Moslems.

It is a rational conclusion, given that virtually 100% of the evidence suggests that it is the most plausible explanation of the events.

It is important because it shows our goal is not to capture bin Laden but to use him as a boogeyman.

If you believe that's what it shows, then you did not read the CNN transcript of the interview I linked for you. This is purely an unwarranted speculation on your part.

Almost all our resources have gone into Iraq, not in pursuing Al-Qaeda. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars in that ridiculous Easter Egg hunt for Saddam's non-existent WMD.

I'm not terribly keen on our Iraq policy myself, and I understand the frustration that is obvious in your choice of words, however, you have strayed far from providing support for your claim that our goal is to use bin Laden as a boogeyman.

Also, you did not answer this question:

Do you not think it is more prudent to use our resources to comprehensively reduce the ability of al Qeida to attack us again than it is to pursue one person in the interest of justice?

[gumboot]

Reg: It's bled us white, war. It's taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
Loretta: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: Yeah.
Loretta: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what has it ever given us in return?!
Xerxes: Penicillin?
Reg: What?
Xerxes: Penicillin.
Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. It did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
Commando 3: And abolishment of slavery.
Loretta: Oh, yeah, the abolishment of slavery, Reg. Remember what the South used to be like.
Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you penicillin and the abolishment of slavery are two things that war has done.
Matthias: And freedom!
Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously freedom. I mean, freedom goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from penicillin, the abolishment of slavery, freedom--
Commando: Radar.
Xerxes: Medicine.
Commandos: Huh? Heh? Huh...
Commando 2: Telecommunications.
Commandos: Ohh...
Reg: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
Commando 1: And the aeroplane.
Commandos: Oh, yes. Yeah...
Francis: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the wars never happened. Huh.
Commando: Jet engine.
Loretta: And it's safe to visit Germany now, Reg.
Francis: Yeah, it certainly gets rid of psychopathic dictators. Let's face it. It's the only thing that could in a place like this!
Commandos: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
Reg: But apart from the abolishment of slavery, the medicine, telecommunications, the aeroplane, removal of psychopathic dictators, radar, freedom, antibiotics, and the jet engine, what has war ever done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, pea-- Shut up!

[Belz...]

What's that, Gum ?

[Elizabeth I]

You knocking war vets now too?

Not to mention making fun of amputees.

[gumboot]

What's that, Gum ?

5kiUgr9dCrk :D

[tanabear]

And how is that not YOUR interpretation ?

The Uranium/Niger documents were forged. This was established before we invaded in March of 2003.

It is a rational conclusion, given that virtually 100% of the evidence suggests that it is the most plausible explanation of the events.



If you believe that's what it shows, then you did not read the CNN transcript of the interview I linked for you. This is purely an unwarranted speculation on your part.



I'm not terribly keen on our Iraq policy myself, and I understand the frustration that is obvious in your choice of words, however, you have strayed far from providing support for your claim that our goal is to use bin Laden as a boogeyman.

Also, you did not answer this question:Do you not think it is more prudent to use our resources to comprehensively reduce the ability of al Qeida to attack us again than it is to pursue one person in the interest of justice?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. UBL and Zawahiri are suppose to be located in the tribal regions Pakistan. This is where the most of the top Al-Qaeda leaders are suppose to be. So going after bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are for the most part one in the same. Notice that Bush stated just six months after 9/11 that he was not that concerned about UBL, but he was very concerned about Saddam. Now, five years after the Iraq Attaq, after we have toppled and killed Saddam, we can't leave Iraq because we are to worried about Al-Qaeda in Iraq!!. Regardless of whether it is better to reduce Al-Qaeda's ability to attack us or put more emphasis on UBL, we can say that the policy of this Administration has been to do neither. The goal is to use Osama bin Laden as a boogeyman.

[MIKILLINI]

Yes, I tend to use logic and common sense as my debate tactics.




When is that going to happen? you're arguing from the side of twooferism uncertainty.

[rwguinn]

When is that going to happen? you're arguing from the side of twooferism uncertainty.
Ah--but you see, tanabear is not debating, he/she/it is Baiting.
It's an excuse, anyway...

[dudalb]

War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other. - Paul Valéry

Valéry did not know much history .
One of the real weaknesses of the Peace Movement is that too many of them dislike war so much they do not bother to study it,and instead rely on warm,fuzzy,and falacious statements like the above.

[dudalb]

Nope, wars are out. You are talking about the past. Ape-like behaviour had to be tolerated sometimes in the past. Not anymore. We can't effort it any longer. Wars are out and you are wrong

Someone is living in a different reality.....

[T.A.M.]

are you serious, did some one just say...

"Wars are out."

OMG...thats all I can say.
TAM:)

[MIKILLINI]

are you serious, did some one just say...

"Wars are out."

OMG...thats all I can say.
TAM:)

Tam, that "wars are out" comment would disqualify the commenter from reaching the finals of "The brightest crayon in the box" competition.;)

[Childlike Empress]

The Uranium/Niger documents were forged. This was established before we invaded in March of 2003.



The two aren't mutually exclusive. UBL and Zawahiri are suppose to be located in the tribal regions Pakistan. This is where the most of the top Al-Qaeda leaders are suppose to be. So going after bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are for the most part one in the same. Notice that Bush stated just six months after 9/11 that he was not that concerned about UBL, but he was very concerned about Saddam. Now, five years after the Iraq Attaq, after we have toppled and killed Saddam, we can't leave Iraq because we are to worried about Al-Qaeda in Iraq!!. Regardless of whether it is better to reduce Al-Qaeda's ability to attack us or put more emphasis on UBL, we can say that the policy of this Administration has been to do neither. The goal is to use Osama bin Laden as a boogeyman.


Recent comment by one of the leading mainstream terrorism experts in Germany (Rolf Tophoven) (paraphrasing): "I can't understand why they havn't catched Bin Laden yet - given the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan is the closest surveilled area on this planet (from space)".

[A W Smith]

Recent comment by one of the leading mainstream terrorism experts in Germany (Rolf Tophoven) (paraphrasing): "I can't understand why they havn't catched Bin Laden yet - given the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan is the closest surveilled area on this planet (from space)".


And if hes already dead? what do you expect them to see dear?

[Childlike Empress]

And if hes already dead? what do you expect them to see dear?


I said "mainstream" terrorism expert. He isn't able to think that Bin Laden might be dead and all the fuzz about catching him is just scapegoating. Your president is more advanced in that issue (he doesn't seem to be too excited about catching the Mastermind of Al-Qaida) and i, for one, think Osama died in late 2001, yanking his dialysis machine behind him, in the mountains of Hindukush (literally translated to "death of the hindus").

[A W Smith]

I said "mainstream" terrorism expert. He isn't able to think that Bin Laden might be dead and all the fuzz about catching him is just scapegoating. Your president is more advanced in that issue (he doesn't seem to be too excited about catching the Mastermind of Al-Qaida (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=404070&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5)) and i, for one, think Osama died in late 2001, yanking his dialysis machine behind him, in the mountains of Hindukush (literally translated to "death of the hindus").

I took the liberty of hyperlinking a portion of your posting. Perhaps a bit of research (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17617986/) is in order on your part.

[Childlike Empress]

What is your problem with the word "mainstream"? Ask an average citizen of "the west" about who is the mastermind of 9/11. They will say "Bin Laden".

Btw, i've informed several people of this forum about the existance of KSM. The search function doesn't present me what i'm looking for, but if you're really interested i'm going to overcome my laziness. "KSM" AND "Childlike Empress" just brings up too many result. Research it for yourself.

Oh, and by the way (i like the part about the goatee beard):

As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared. The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even — so it was occasionally rumoured — in some hiding-place in Oceania itself.

Winston's diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard — a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party — an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed — and all this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life. And all the while, lest one should be in any doubt as to the reality which Goldstein's specious claptrap covered, behind his head on the telescreen there marched the endless columns of the Eurasian army — row after row of solid-looking men with expressionless Asiatic faces, who swam up to the surface of the screen and vanished, to be replaced by others exactly similar. The dull rhythmic tramp of the soldiers” boots formed the background to Goldstein's bleating voice.

Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were — in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State. The Brotherhood, its name was supposed to be. There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies, of which Goldstein was the author and which circulated clandestinely here and there. It was a book without a title. People referred to it, if at all, simply as the book. But one knew of such things only through vague rumours. Neither the Brotherhood nor the book was a subject that any ordinary Party member would mention if there was a way of avoiding it.

In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O'Brien's heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out ‘Swine! Swine! Swine!’ and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein's nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston's hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein seemed to him to be true. At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia, and Goldstein, in spite of his isolation, his helplessness, and the doubt that hung about his very existence, seemed like some sinister enchanter, capable by the mere power of his voice of wrecking the structure of civilization.

It was even possible, at moments, to switch one's hatred this way or that by a voluntary act. Suddenly, by the sort of violent effort with which one wrenches one's head away from the pillow in a nightmare, Winston succeeded in transferring his hatred from the face on the screen to the dark-haired girl behind him. Vivid, beautiful hallucinations flashed through his mind. He would flog her to death with a rubber truncheon. He would tie her naked to a stake and shoot her full of arrows like Saint Sebastian. He would ravish her and cut her throat at the moment of climax. Better than before, moreover, he realized why it was that he hated her. He hated her because she was young and pretty and sexless, because he wanted to go to bed with her and would never do so, because round her sweet supple waist, which seemed to ask you to encircle it with your arm, there was only the odious scarlet sash, aggressive symbol of chastity.

The Hate rose to its climax. The voice of Goldstein had become an actual sheep's bleat, and for an instant the face changed into that of a sheep. Then the sheep-face melted into the figure of a Eurasian soldier who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, his sub-machine gun roaring, and seeming to spring out of the surface of the screen, so that some of the people in the front row actually flinched backwards in their seats. But in the same moment, drawing a deep sigh of relief from everybody, the hostile figure melted into the face of Big Brother, black-haired, black-moustachio'd, full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that it almost filled up the screen. Nobody heard what Big Brother was saying. It was merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din of battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence by the fact of being spoken. Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

source (http://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_p_1)


Take care. :(

[tsig]

Keep telling yourself that. :p

BSing and misleading are just strategies.

[Corsair 115]

Reg: But apart from the abolishment of slavery, the medicine, telecommunications, the aeroplane, removal of psychopathic dictators, radar, freedom, antibiotics, and the jet engine, what has war ever done for us?As amusing as the full passage was, I feel compelled to point out that the invention of the aeroplane, radar, and the jet engine actually pre-date WWII (and WWI in the case of the aeroplane).

It is fair to say however that wartime greatly accelerated the development of these technologies.

[TjW]

Ah--but you see, tanabear is not debating, he/she/it is Baiting.
<snip>

And a master at it, no doubt.

[Pardalis]

Oh, and by the way (i like the part about the goatee beard):


Take care. :(

Did you read past page one?

[Belz...]

5kiUgr9dCrk :D

Still don't know what that is... :(

[Confuseling]

Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Utter, unalloyed genius.

[Belz...]

The Uranium/Niger documents were forged. This was established before we invaded in March of 2003.

Again, how is that not your interpretation ?

[kookbreaker]

Did you read past page one?

Troofers and 1984! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1902491&highlight=1984#post1902491)

By me, :)

[thesyntaxera]

Did anyone use the word "inductive" yet?

[cisco]

Troofers and 1984! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1902491&highlight=1984#post1902491)

By me, :)

Oh you're giving them waaaaaayyy too much credit assuming they read it.

[Drudgewire]

Oh you're giving them waaaaaayyy too much credit assuming they read it.
I simply can't imagine anyone who actually read and applies the book to today's society not being more terrified of political correctness than the Patriot Act.

[CurtC]

The Uranium/Niger documents were forged. This was established before we invaded in March of 2003.

Belz said they were wrongly interpreted, you say they were forged. Why can't you both be right? They were forged in Niger or France, possibly, and wrongly interpreted in the US.

I hate to be seen as defending the administration or US intelligence here, they were shockingly negligent in their duties of verifying the intelligence. However, it doesn't help make a case against them, to overstate what we do know by implying they forged the documents themselves.

[dudalb]

Quoting Orwell is getting to be like comparing somebody to Hitler: 90% of the time a sign that a discussiion has gone totally south.

[LukeB]

Still don't know what that is... :(

Someone needs a trip to the Orwell Memorial Re-Education Center.

[tanabear]

Again, how is that not your interpretation ?

Maybe a quick summary would help. The Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican, al-Zahawiah, visited Niger in 1999. In 2000, over the Christmas holiday's, the Niger Embassy in Italy was broken into and many documents were stolen. These stolen documents were the basis for the forged Uranium-Niger documents. These forged documents were used to create the impression that the true purpose of the trip was to secretly arrange a large shipment of Uranium to Iraq in 2000. The actual purpose of the Iraqi ambassador's visit was to persuade a number of West African leaders to to travel to Baghdad to break the air embargo that had long been strangling his country. Zahawie also traveled to Benin, Burkina-Faso and Congo-Brazzaville. The leader of Niger, Ibrahim Mainassara, agreed to pay a visit by was assassinated shortly thereafter. These documents were probably forged sometime in 2001. These forged documents are the basis of the reports sent from SISMI(Italian Intelligence) to the other intelligence agencies, CIA, DIA and MI-6. On Oct. 15, 2001 SISMI provides Jeff Castelli of the CIA a summary of what is listed in these documents. This is the begining of the peddling of this phony information. Another report is sent on February 5th, 2002. The 2nd report was far more detailed and included almost a "verbatim text" of the documents. On Feb 12th of 2002 the DIA issued a summary of this information in a briefing to Mr. Cheney. Cheney asked for someone to look into this. It was Cheney's question that prompted Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. In February of 2003, these documents are turned over to Jacques Baute, the head of the UN Iraq Nuclear Verification office. He is able to conclude that they are forgeries just by doing a google search. Melissa Fleming, a spokewoman for the IAEA stated, “These were blatant forgeries. We were able to determine that they were forgeries very quickly,” One obvious giveaway was the fact that it was signed by Niger's foreign minister who had not been in office since 1989. The Robb-Silberman Commission was setup to investigate the pre-war intelligence claims. Their report concluded, "there was only one set of Niger documents, that they were forged and that they were the basis of the reports that led to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger." A internal CIA memo to George Tenet also concludes, “Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” Senator Jay Rockefeller asked the FBI to look into the matter. But I guess understanding who helped to promote false information to start an illegal war was not a top priority.

So it is well established that the documents were forged.

Belz said they were wrongly interpreted, you say they were forged. Why can't you both be right? They were forged in Niger or France, possibly, and wrongly interpreted in the US.

I hate to be seen as defending the administration or US intelligence here, they were shockingly negligent in their duties of verifying the intelligence. However, it doesn't help make a case against them, to overstate what we do know by implying they forged the documents themselves.

How can you misinterpret false information? I suppose it is possible, but if the underlying information is false then it is also pointless.

[Belz...]

Maybe a quick summary would help. The Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican, al-Zahawiah, visited Niger in 1999. In 2000, over the Christmas holiday's, the Niger Embassy in Italy was broken into and many documents were stolen. These stolen documents were the basis for the forged Uranium-Niger documents. These forged documents were used to create the impression that the true purpose of the trip was to secretly arrange a large shipment of Uranium to Iraq in 2000. The actual purpose of the Iraqi ambassador's visit was to persuade a number of West African leaders to to travel to Baghdad to break the air embargo that had long been strangling his country. Zahawie also traveled to Benin, Burkina-Faso and Congo-Brazzaville. The leader of Niger, Ibrahim Mainassara, agreed to pay a visit by was assassinated shortly thereafter. These documents were probably forged sometime in 2001. These forged documents are the basis of the reports sent from SISMI(Italian Intelligence) to the other intelligence agencies, CIA, DIA and MI-6. On Oct. 15, 2001 SISMI provides Jeff Castelli of the CIA a summary of what is listed in these documents. This is the begining of the peddling of this phony information. Another report is sent on February 5th, 2002. The 2nd report was far more detailed and included almost a "verbatim text" of the documents. On Feb 12th of 2002 the DIA issued a summary of this information in a briefing to Mr. Cheney. Cheney asked for someone to look into this. It was Cheney's question that prompted Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. In February of 2003, these documents are turned over to Jacques Baute, the head of the UN Iraq Nuclear Verification office. He is able to conclude that they are forgeries just by doing a google search. Melissa Fleming, a spokewoman for the IAEA stated, “These were blatant forgeries. We were able to determine that they were forgeries very quickly,” One obvious giveaway was the fact that it was signed by Niger's foreign minister who had not been in office since 1989. The Robb-Silberman Commission was setup to investigate the pre-war intelligence claims. Their report concluded, "there was only one set of Niger documents, that they were forged and that they were the basis of the reports that led to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger." A internal CIA memo to George Tenet also concludes, “Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” Senator Jay Rockefeller asked the FBI to look into the matter. But I guess understanding who helped to promote false information to start an illegal war was not a top priority.

That's a very nice story, you have there. Any chance I could verify it's authenticity ?

[Sabrina]

Trust me when I say, it's very easy to misinterpret false information, especially if you're looking to impress your superiors and don't check your sources. Plus, if we're receiving it from a TRUSTED source (i.e. the Italian intelligence bureau you mentioned) we're a little less likely to think it's false information. It doesn't excuse the fact that we missed it, but it certainly would explain why it got as far as it did without being checked.

This is precisely why the recommendations of the 9/11 commission absolutely NEED to be put into place for the US Intelligence Community. The recommendations of that commission will greatly mitigate and/or eliminate the vast majority of mistakes typically made by the IC. And, I have to be honest, I'm bloody sick of people assuming that the US Intelligence Community is supposed to be infalliable. It's made up of HUMANS; they make MISTAKES. The vast majority of intelligence is essentially guesswork as it is; you take the available information and make your best guess as to what the outcome will be, so there's always a chance you'll be partially or even completely wrong. The only way we could be infalliable is if there WERE a freakin' NWO out there manipulating everything, and even then there's the possibility of something not going the way it was planned due to human error. Sheesh.

[Horatius]

How can you misinterpret false information? I suppose it is possible, but if the underlying information is false then it is also pointless.



I would suggest that forcing a misinterpretation is the whole point of creating the false informationin the first place. Otherwise, why would someone go to the trouble of trying to create the false information in the first place?

Of course, this tells us nothing about who falsified the info, or what it was they wanted to accomplish with it.

[tanabear]

That's a very nice story, you have there. Any chance I could verify it's authenticity ?

Yes, most of the information that is required is available on-line. You could also try a couple of books, A Pretext for War by James Bamford and Hubris by Isikoff and Corn.

Trust me when I say, it's very easy to misinterpret false information, especially if you're looking to impress your superiors and don't check your sources

Someone might be trying to impress their superiors because they knew some of their superiors were looking for excuses to start a war. People within the State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research found the claim to be "highly suspect."

[Arus808]

of course you have proof of this tana?

[tanabear]

of course you have proof of this tana?

Do I have proof of what? If one wishes to become educated on the matter then I've pointed you to where you can begin. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." As well, "You can lead a Randian to knowledge but you can't make him think."

[I Am He]

Do I have proof of what? If one wishes to become educated on the matter then I've pointed you to where you can begin. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." As well, "You can lead a Randian to knowledge but you can't make him think." Then why don't you follow them?


I Am He

[twinstead]

"I've pointed you to where you can begin" is truther code for "here, go to the sources that I believe without question and whose ideas I am simply parroting; I'm not prepared debate the subject in my own words".

[Belz...]

That's a very nice story, you have there. Any chance I could verify it's authenticity ?

Yes, most of the information that is required is available on-line.

I'll take that as a "no".

You could also try a couple of books, A Pretext for War by James Bamford and Hubris by Isikoff and Corn.

I'm not going to prove your theory to you, Tana. Links and quotations, please.

Someone might be trying to impress their superiors because they knew some of their superiors were looking for excuses to start a war.

Objection: speculation.

[Sabrina]

Someone might be trying to impress their superiors because they knew some of their superiors were looking for excuses to start a war. People within the State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research found the claim to be "highly suspect."

Or it could just be a simple mistake on the part of a new intelligence analyst.

Occam's Razor, tana. Learn it, know it, be it.

[Travis]

Someone was passed documents from another intelligence agency. Some experts think they are forged while others think they are authentic. Those in charge eventually choose to side with them being authentic.

This all proves what exactly????? That interpreting intelligence is hard and often comes down to a subjective judgment call?

[tanabear]

"I've pointed you to where you can begin" is truther code for "here, go to the sources that I believe without question and whose ideas I am simply parroting; I'm not prepared debate the subject in my own words".

I did use my own words and then he acted as if I made the whole thing up. I'll repeat what I said previously. The Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican, al-Zahawiah, visited Niger in 1999. In 2000, over the Christmas holiday's, the Niger Embassy in Italy was broken into and many documents were stolen. These stolen documents were the basis for the forged Uranium-Niger documents. These forged documents were used to create the impression that the true purpose of the trip was to secretly arrange a large shipment of Uranium to Iraq in 2000. The actual purpose of the Iraqi ambassador's visit was to persuade a number of West African leaders to to travel to Baghdad to break the air embargo that had long been strangling his country. Zahawie also traveled to Benin, Burkina-Faso and Congo-Brazzaville. The leader of Niger, Ibrahim Mainassara, agreed to pay a visit by was assassinated shortly thereafter. These documents were probably forged sometime in 2001. These forged documents are the basis of the reports sent from SISMI(Italian Intelligence) to the other intelligence agencies, CIA, DIA and MI-6. On Oct. 15, 2001 SISMI provides Jeff Castelli of the CIA a summary of what is listed in these documents. This is the begining of the peddling of this phony information. Another report is sent on February 5th, 2002. The 2nd report was far more detailed and included almost a "verbatim text" of the documents. On Feb 12th of 2002 the DIA issued a summary of this information in a briefing to Mr. Cheney. Cheney asked for someone to look into this. It was Cheney's question that prompted Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. In February of 2003, these documents are turned over to Jacques Baute, the head of the UN Iraq Nuclear Verification office. He is able to conclude that they are forgeries just by doing a google search. Melissa Fleming, a spokewoman for the IAEA stated, “These were blatant forgeries. We were able to determine that they were forgeries very quickly,” One obvious giveaway was the fact that it was signed by Niger's foreign minister who had not been in office since 1989. The Robb-Silberman Commission was setup to investigate the pre-war intelligence claims. Their report concluded, "there was only one set of Niger documents, that they were forged and that they were the basis of the reports that led to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger." A internal CIA memo to George Tenet also concludes, “Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” Senator Jay Rockefeller asked the FBI to look into the matter. But I guess understanding who helped to promote false information to start an illegal war was not a top priority.

So it is well established that the documents were forged.


I'll take that as a "no".



I'm not going to prove your theory to you, Tana. Links and quotations, please.



Objection: speculation.

If you're not going to attempt to learn on your own then why I should I bother? I'm not here to educate the ignorant, merely to reveal it. I included quotes in the previous posting. It wasn't like this story was a big secret. It was in the news. Ever watch Chris Matthews on MSNBC? Nevertheless if you want a link, try this:
http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1

Or it could just be a simple mistake on the part of a new intelligence analyst.

Occam's Razor, tana. Learn it, know it, be it.

Explain to me how Ockham's razor can explain the lies told by this Administration to start war?

[Sabrina]

Travis already did that nicely, tana.

I'm at a loss as to why you seem to think that we should have AUTOMATICALLY known without a shadow of a doubt that the documents were forged. I will say it again; the intelligence community is made up of HUMANS. Humans are FALLIABLE. We make MISTAKES. Why you seem to think it was deliberate is beyond me; Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely, and the simplest explanation here is that a mistake was made on SOMEONE'S part. That the mistake allowed "war-minded individuals" (in your mind anyway) to go to war is simply an outgrowth of a mistake. And explain to me, please, how you KNOW beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that war was "wanted". Can you read minds? If so, Mr. Randi has a million dollars just waiting for you if you can prove it; at least while the Million Dollar Challenge is still ongoing that is.

[Belz...]

If you're not going to attempt to learn on your own then why I should I bother?

Because when YOU make a claim, it is YOUR job to show that it is true, not MINE.

I'm not here to educate the ignorant, merely to reveal it.

Or not, apparently.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1

See ? That wasn't so hard.

[tanabear]

Because when YOU make a claim, it is YOUR job to show that it is true, not MINE.

Or not, apparently.

See ? That wasn't so hard.

I wasn't really making a claim. I was just reporting information that has been publicly available for years. If someone said that we invaded Iraq in March of 2003, then someone else responded, "Prove it." Well, a google search could determine the veracity of that claim pretty quick.

[beachnut]

... Well, a google search could determine the veracity of that claim pretty quick.
The old google search for truth! Who would think of using google as a great source of knowledge and truth? Let me try the top three results for some real easy questions. .

Question: Who killed Ron Brown? Oh google give me the answer! Of the first three web sites, two say Clinton, one is correct saying an accident. Google, 33 percent correct on this first three hits. Woo alert! Strike one…

Question: What happen to flight 800? Oh google tell me true. Oh noes. First three hits all said missiles! Darn google is zero percent correct on this one! A triple woo alert. WOO, WOO, WOO. Strike two…

Game called due to fatigue reading stupid web sites of woo.

I see your search method may be responsible for your lack of knowledge on 9/11 topics. You must learn to use judgment. Judgment and knowledge are keys to understanding the real world. It is hard to get the correct answers, easy to fall for fraud of 9/11 truth.

Any idiot can make up any crazy ideas, and post those ideas on the internet. Beware, this could be the reason many people who lack judgment and knowledge tend to be truthers. Therefore, if you lack judgment and knowledge the internet can be a bad source for evidence and facts.

A search for the beginning of the war to remove Saddam from Iraq could yield a fact. But for those who say, "call me a twoofer I guess", they have failed to use judgment and knowledge when it comes to 9/11 google searches.

[Belz...]

I wasn't really making a claim. I was just reporting information that has been publicly available for years. If someone said that we invaded Iraq in March of 2003, then someone else responded, "Prove it." Well, a google search could determine the veracity of that claim pretty quick.

Indeed. So why did it take so long for you to do so ?

Also, from the link you've provided, I get the impression that it was more a failure of intelligence than a deception. So how do you figure it was a "sham" ?

[Belz...]

Tanabear ?

[tanabear]

Indeed. So why did it take so long for you to do so ?

Also, from the link you've provided, I get the impression that it was more a failure of intelligence than a deception. So how do you figure it was a "sham" ?

An intelligence failure occurs when there is a lack of knowledge regarding something. The attack on Pearl Harbor, India exploding a nuclear weapon, lack of knowledge regarding a specific terrorist attack etc would be examples of intelligence failures. With Iraq the situation was different. In that case, we didn't lack for knowledge, we acquired "knowledge" and information that didn't exist. How did we acquire knowledge that Saddam was stockpiling and producing WMD's? How did we know his motivation for doing so? As Cheney said in a speech in August of 2002,

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

General Anthony Zinni who was in attendance when Cheney gave that speech later wrote,

"In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "

There was no "intelligence failure". It was good old fashioned propaganda.

[Par]

An intelligence failure occurs when there is a lack of knowledge regarding something. The attack on Pearl Harbor, India exploding a nuclear weapon, lack of knowledge regarding a specific terrorist attack etc would be examples of intelligence failures. With Iraq the situation was different. In that case, we didn't lack for knowledge, we acquired "knowledge" and information that didn't exist.


You’re attempting to arbitrarily redefine the term “intelligence failure” so that it carries a narrower meaning than it otherwise would. More specifically, you’re claiming that intelligence failures can only ever manifest themselves as Type II Errors, but never as Type I Errors – a claim for which you provide no argument. In short, you’re committing what’s known as the high-redefinition fallacy.

[twinstead]

In short, you’re committing what’s known as the high-redefinition fallacy.

Frankly, forget high-redefinition. I think he's just 'high'.

[tanabear]

You’re attempting to arbitrarily redefine the term “intelligence failure” so that it carries a narrower meaning than it otherwise would. More specifically, you’re claiming that intelligence failures can only ever manifest themselves as Type II Errors, but never as Type I Errors – a claim for which you provide no argument. In short, you’re committing what’s known as the high-redefinition fallacy.

How was I attempting to redefine the term "intelligence failure?" I gave examples of intelligence failures and each of them had to do with a lack of knowledge and information. The differences between false positives and false negatives have little to do with why we invaded Iraq, or why the Administration said that things they did in the run up to the Iraq Attaq. If someone states something with certainty(i.e. "no doubt") and they have no evidence to support it(in fact, evidence to the contrary), that is not a Type I or Type II error. That is lying. If the claims made by this Administration were a failure of intelligence, as opposed to propaganda, please explain how.

[Par]

How was I attempting to redefine the term "intelligence failure?" I gave examples of intelligence failures and each of them had to do with a lack of knowledge and information.


You suggested that lacking knowledge of an event which transpires to occur (such as Pearl Harbor, for example) could qualify as an intelligence failure, whereas having “knowledge” which transpires to be incorrect (such as, for instance, Hitler’s belief that the D-Day landings were merely a precursor to a second easterly attack) could not – a notion for which you provided no argument.

[Par]

The differences between false positives and false negatives have little to do with why we invaded Iraq, or why the Administration said that things they did in the run up to the Iraq Attaq.


Of course I never claimed that the distinction between the two types of error itself had anything to do with why Iraq was invaded. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine how anyone could think such a thing. It’s a conceptual nightmare.

[Par]

If someone states something with certainty(i.e. "no doubt") and they have no evidence to support it(in fact, evidence to the contrary), that... is lying.


Well, I don’t agree, which is why I don’t believe that all strongly religious types or 9/11 conspiracy theorists, for that matter, are liars. Some people are just extremely poor at interpreting evidence. This may render them dangerously incompetent (a characteristic I believe to be shared by both of the examples above and by the current administration), but it doesn’t necessitate the conclusion that they are simply liars.

[tanabear]

You suggested that lacking knowledge of an event which transpires to occur (such as Pearl Harbor, for example) could qualify as an intelligence failure, whereas having “knowledge” which transpires to be incorrect (such as, for instance, Hitler’s belief that the D-Day landings were merely a precursor to a second easterly attack) could not – a notion for which you provided no argument.

Hitler's belief that Normandy was a precursor to another attack is in no way similar to the the statements made by this Administration leading up to the Iraq War. If someone believes that their opponent is going to do "A" and their opponent does "B", then someone guessed wrong. If I'm playing chess and I think my opponent is going to move his knight and instead he moves his Bishop, that has nothing to do with making statements that are known to be false. A better example is when false evidence is used in a criminal trial. In short, Hitler's belief is not forensic or physical evidence. He thought wrong due to a lack of knowledge. He did not aquire evidence that didn't exist.

Well, I don’t agree, which is why I don’t believe that all strongly religious types or 9/11 conspiracy theorists, for that matter, are liars. Some people are just extremely poor at interpreting evidence. This may render them dangerously incompetent (a characteristic I believe to be shared by both of the examples above and by the current administration), but it doesn’t necessitate the conclusion that they are simply liars.

You write, "Some people are just extremely poor at interpreting evidence." First you have to tell me what evidence was wrongly interpreted.

[uk_dave]

In short, Hitler's belief is not forensic or physical evidence. He thought wrong due to a lack of knowledge. He did not aquire evidence that didn't exist.


He thought it for a reason....

Operation Fortitude was the codename for the deception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception) operations used by the Allied forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II) during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) in connection with the Normandy landings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy) (Operation Overlord). It was divided into Fortitude North, a threat to invade Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway), and Fortitude South, designed to induce the Germans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) to believe that the main invasion of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) would occur in the Pas de Calais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pas_de_Calais) rather than Normandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy). Fortitude was one of the most successful deception operations of the war and arguably the most important. Both Fortitude North and Fortitude South were related to a wider deception plan called Operation Bodyguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude

We have the wonderful benefit of hindsight. Couple that with the 'truthers' willingness to believe in complex plots and secret agendas, and every action taken in the run up to the Iraq war can be seen as a convenient subterfuge.

But, of course neither Tana nor any other 'truther' will ever find themselves in the position of having to make a decision which could hold the fate of thousands of their fellow citizens.

I'm certainly no fan of Bush or the political ideology he stands for, but ultimately I believe the US administration was faced with some worrying 'what if' scenarios, such as.....

What if the weak intelligence indicating that Iraq is still holding chemical weapons turns out to be the most reliable?

What if the weapons inspections are halted and sanctions lifted, enabling Iraq to go flat out for rebuilding his arsenal?

What if Saddam starts to view some of those in AQ who escaped Afghanistan as being potential useful tools for him to give the west a bloody nose and boost his standing in the mid-east?

What if he does enable terrorists to obtain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons?

What then?

I wouldn't want to have to make that decision without 100% certainty that Iraq didn't have any WMD and couldn't obtain WMD any time within the next 20 years.

Then factor in that Iraq was a brutal regime (not uncommon in the mid-east) which had oppressed it's own people many times in the past and that regime change might actually lead to greater stabilisation in that region. That maybe democracy could work there.

I'm sure regional stabilisation to secure the supply of oil under the NWO which existed after the fall of the soviet bloc was also an aim of deposing the sadam regime. But all of the above are fairly compelling reasons to place (perhaps) much greater emphasis on the possibility of WMD existing in Iraq and trying to achieve a global consensus for military action to remove the threat and improve the lives of the citizens of Iraq and other countries in the region.

That it didn't work out is down more to execution than to intent.