colleen rowley

[geggy]

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

Smear jobs by debunkers are welcomed

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Normally I would love to smear her, I hate truthers as much as the next guy. But she doesn't really say anything in the article.

It's all "blah-blah-blah-new investigation-blah-blah-blah".

Eight years of screaming "inside job" and you all still have no evidence.

[beachnut]

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

Smear jobs by debunkers are welcomed
Your posting the story may be indicative of the article being worthless and you of course presented all your extra supporting evidence in your OP. Wow, just like all your other evidence on 911; zero.

Standard procedure you have no comment due to lack of knowledge and no ability to tie this to any coherent conspiracy theory delusion you have. I assume you don't understand the article and need help with it.

She supports a new investigation into 911. Does this means she is incapable of understanding the first one? The only thing she has is FBI politics as her smoking gun for a new investigation. She is bad mouthing her old employer and wants revenge or she has evidence for a new investigation. Oops. She has zero evidence; just a feeling, an opinion based on nothing; just like your OP without the opinion.

SOT said it all! And you said nothing to support the nothing of your nothing OP. Tell me you have something more?

[johnny karate]

Why is a person connected to the FBI only considered a credible source when Truthers like what they have to say?

[geggy]

Timeline of coleen rowley

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=coleen+rowley&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

[johnny karate]

Yawn.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Timeline of coleen rowley

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=coleen+rowley&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

And which part of that proves 9/11 was an inside job?

[Alt+F4]

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

Smear jobs by debunkers are welcomed

What is there to smear? She believes that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists.

The official dissembling and excuse-making about the true causes and prior mistakes that gave rise to and allowed the terrorist attacks to happen...

She goes on to condem the, "Bush-Cheney Administration’s egregious and lawless, post 9-11 “war on terror”. I think almost everyone would agree with this statement.

What you "truthers" don't understand is that almost no one is defending the Bush Administration which certainly used 9/11 to advance it's own goals. Why can't you just concentrate on stuff like this and drop all this FDNY/Mossad/nano-thermite/Silverstein/etc./etc. crap?

Anyway thanks for the link, and much kudos to Collen!

[geggy]

Yawn.

You read the whole thing in 3 minutes? Sorry I'll take rowley's words over your yawning.

[geggy]

What is there to smear? She believes that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists.

Then why is she pushing for a new investigation? Regardless of who was behind the attacks, it is still a terrorist attack.

She goes on to condem the, Bush-Cheney Administrations egregious and lawless, post 9-11 war on terror. I think almost everyone would agree with this statement.

What you truthers don't understand is that almost no one is defending the Bush Administration which certainly used 9/11 to advance it's own goals. Why can't you just concentrate on stuff like this and drop all this FDNY/Mossad/nano-thermite/Silverstein/etc./etc. crap?

Anyway thanks for the link, and much kudos to Collen!

Did you read the whole letter? She then states that the war on terror had nothing to do with stopping terrorism.

[Brainster]

What makes me laugh is that she's supporting that idiotic NYCCAN initiative, which I have been praying will get on the ballot and pass.

Why? Because it just sets the Troofers up for another monumental failure. The cost of the investigation is budgeted at $10 million per year for $50 million. And who pays for that?

The Troofers are going to raise the money from private donations.

:D

[beachnut]

Timeline of coleen rowley

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=coleen+rowley&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go
Is poor Rowley is a lawyer who tired to make a business out of whistle-blowing and failed? Is she good at making up nothing and has she proved her blowing the whistle failed to do anything?

Why do you put so much effort into your posts? (another zombie blast from the past)

[johnny karate]

You read the whole thing in 3 minutes? Sorry I'll take rowley's words over your yawning.

Clearly you are confused as I did not offer my yawn as a counterargument to anything Rowley said, but merely as an expression of boredom at Truthers like yourself still bringing nothing new to the table after eight years.

If there is a specific point or argument that Rowley makes you feel offers new insight, please quote it. Until then, my response is: Yawn.

[Alt+F4]

Then why is she pushing for a new investigation? Regardless of who was behind the attacks, it is still a terrorist attack.

[quote]She goes on to condem the, "Bush-Cheney Administration

Did you even read the article? She believes that terrorists carried out the attacks and that the Bush Administration missed the signs and took advantage of the results.

Is there anything in that article that I missed where she states that she believes or has evidence that the Bush Administration, or Mossad, or Silverstein (take you pick) was behind the attacks?

[johnny karate]

Then why is she pushing for a new investigation? Regardless of who was behind the attacks, it is still a terrorist attack.

She's looking for accountability and has her sights set on the Bush Administration. And had you read the statement by Rowley quoted by Alt+4, you'd see Rowley clearly acknowledges the 9/11 attacks came from an external threat as she condemns the government for allowing them to happen.

[twinstead]

I think geggy is under the mistaken belief that we are all some kind of Bush Administration supporting automatons. Odd. He's been here long enough to know that's not the case at all.


Oh, and Alt+F4--your avatar frightens and confuses me.

[Alt+F4]

Oh, and Alt+F4--your avatar frightens and confuses me.

[evil laugh] bwwwww![/evil laugh]

[Toke]

No smearing here, her article looks fine to me, truthers may be a bit disapointed:D when/if they figure out what she want investigated.

[deep]

No smearing here, her article looks fine to me, truthers may be a bit disapointed:D when/if they figure out what she want investigated.


It's fairly obvious what she wants investigated - the NYCCAN website has all the information (or links to it).

[UNLoVedRebel]

Does Rowley doubt 1) what hit the twin towers or 2) what caused the towers to fall or 3) what hit the pentagon or 4) what made that big smoking crater in PA?

[Brainster]

She's looking for accountability and has her sights set on the Bush Administration. And had you read the statement by Rowley quoted by Alt+4, you'd see Rowley clearly acknowledges the 9/11 attacks came from an external threat as she condemns the government for allowing them to happen.

I think she condemns the government for mistakes that allowed the 9-11 attacks to happen, not LIHOP.

And if she thinks the clown posse running this commission will accomplish anything other than the usual foot-shooting we've come to expect from the Troofers, she's crazy.

[Alt+F4]

It's fairly obvious what she wants investigated - the NYCCAN website has all the information (or links to it).

Notice that the "Questions" section is a link to a document written by 12 people and not updated since February 13, 2005?

Besides the fact that most of their "unanswered questions" have been answered in the past 4 and a half years (many of the questions date back to 2003), nowhere do any of these people endorse MIHOP.

[MIKILLINI]

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

Smear jobs by debunkers are welcomed

Smear jobs? :rolleyes: There's nothing compelling here. What do you find compelling about this, Geggy?

[Alt+F4]

And if she thinks the clown posse running this commission will accomplish anything other than the usual foot-shooting we've come to expect from the Troofers, she's crazy.

I don't think she's crazy, it's just that the Troofers have created a new site for that stupid petition that has attempted to coverup the lie they are pushing.

[Toke]

It's fairly obvious what she wants investigated - the NYCCAN website has all the information (or links to it).

I don't see how it will help truthers.:)
So they must be unaware of NYCCAN's intentions, right?
Or just desperate.

[Brainster]

I don't think she's crazy, it's just that the Troofers have created a new site for that stupid petition that has attempted to coverup the lie they are pushing.

Exactly. I don't blame her personally; she may have been contacted by one of the Jersey Girls and asked to lend her support.

[Quad4_72]

Hmmmm. Don't see anything in that article about 9/11 CTs. Perhaps this thread should be moved?

[Elizabeth I]

You read the whole thing in 3 minutes? Sorry I'll take rowley's words over your yawning.

It was seven paragraphs. I read it in a minute. Are you what those in the literacy business euphemistically refer to as a "reluctant reader"?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Hmmmm. Don't see anything in that article about 9/11 CTs. Perhaps this thread should be moved?

So do you basically agree with the article?

[progge]

Timeline of coleen rowley

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=coleen+rowley&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Have you read the timeline by yourself?
Rowley does nothing to support an inside job case. She blames a set of FBI´s pre-9/11 actions as failures in anti-terrorism policy and feels this fact somewhat covered up in the aftermath. Read this:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html
And read this:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0306-06.htm

That´s not even LIHOP, let alone MIHOP. Rowley uses the term "failure" very often to describe what she thinks is covered up, and this term is not very common in the 9/11 truth movement. So nothing to "smear" here.

People who are calling for a new investigation into 9/11 tend to have VERY different motives. The suspicion of an inside job is one of these motives. Another motive is the need of some more finger-pointing (remember, the 9/11 CR did not want to blame individuals). Apparently, Rowley belongs to the second category.

[Quad4_72]

So do you basically agree with the article?

Were there mistakes and and negligence on the governments part that allowed for 9/11 to happen? Yes. Do I think we need a new investigation? Nope.

[Pardalis]

Geggy has been handed his ass so many times in these here parts that he now only posts links and hopes they will make the argument for him.

[T.A.M.]

So and FBI agent supports a new investigation because she feels there were issues within the FBI that prevented her coworkers from uncovering the plot in time, and because Bush and Cheney Launched their war on terror, and teh war in Iraq.

Ok...so...so *********** what.

This is not even LIHOP, let alone MIHOP. SO Geggy and other truthers who agree with her, does that mean you officially give up the MIHOP line of thinking now, in favor of her?

Or are you just so desperate for attention, and for people to buy the snake oil, that you will take what ever LOOSELY AFFILIATED news and opinion that you can gather, and claim it as part of your own, sorry ass movement?

TAM:)

[Pinch]

She goes on to condem the, "Bush-Cheney Administration’s egregious and lawless, post 9-11 “war on terror”. I think almost everyone would agree with this statement.

I wouldn't.

[twinstead]

Yup. One again in the truthers' black and white thinking, one has to either worship the ground GWB walks on or think 911 was an inside job. It gives me a chuckle every time I read threads like this.

[newton3376]

She goes on to condem the, "Bush-Cheney Administration’s egregious and lawless, post 9-11 “war on terror”. I think almost everyone would agree with this statement.

I would be one of the few who doesn't have big issues with us being in Iraq.....but that is another discussion....

[newton3376]

Yup. One again in the truthers' black and white thinking, one has to either worship the ground GWB walks on or think 911 was an inside job. It gives me a chuckle every time I read threads like this.

That is exactly how they tend to think.....the "either/or" fallacy....

[FineWine]

What is there to smear? She believes that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists.



She goes on to condem the, "Bush-Cheney Administration’s egregious and lawless, post 9-11 “war on terror”. I think almost everyone would agree with this statement.

What you "truthers" don't understand is that almost no one is defending the Bush Administration which certainly used 9/11 to advance it's own goals. Why can't you just concentrate on stuff like this and drop all this FDNY/Mossad/nano-thermite/Silverstein/etc./etc. crap?

Anyway thanks for the link, and much kudos to Collen!


I'm afraid I have to part company with you, Alt+F4. I can't see what "goals" of the Bush administration were advanced by the attacks of 9/11. Lying "truthers" pretend that their imaginary cabal of Jewish neocons got their prayers answered, but, as always, the claim makes no sense. If the members of PNAC wanted America's strategic arsenal to be revamped and a comprehensive missile-defense system to become a reality, they certainly got sidetracked. The enormous expenditures for keeping a quarter-million men in the field denied funds for R & D. Now missile defense funds are being cut. I refuse to join you in supporting the "truthers" agenda-driven attack on Bush's war against the Islamofascists. Bush wasn't always right, but he saw the big picture very clearly.

[FineWine]

So do you basically agree with the article?


Given that you, as usual, haven't read it and wouldn't understand it if you tried reading it, what difference can it make if he agrees or not? The article lends no credence to your insane myths.

[T.A.M.]

I'm afraid I have to part company with you, Alt+F4. I can't see what "goals" of the Bush administration were advanced by the attacks of 9/11. Lying "truthers" pretend that their imaginary cabal of Jewish neocons got their prayers answered, but, as always, the claim makes no sense. If the members of PNAC wanted America's strategic arsenal to be revamped and a comprehensive missile-defense system to become a reality, they certainly got sidetracked. The enormous expenditures for keeping a quarter-million men in the field denied funds for R & D. Now missile defense funds are being cut. I refuse to join you in supporting the "truthers" agenda-driven attack on Bush's war against the Islamofascists. Bush wasn't always right, but he saw the big picture very clearly.

This is best left for the politics section, where it can get quite heated, but I believe that 9/11 was used in many ways to evoke fear in the american people, and ultimately to push on to them with relative ease, the war in Iraq.

That is likely (though I will not speak for him) what Alt+F4 means.

TAM:)

[FineWine]

This is best left for the politics section, where it can get quite heated, but I believe that 9/11 was used in many ways to evoke fear in the american people, and ultimately to push on to them with relative ease, the war in Iraq.

That is likely (though I will not speak for him) what Alt+F4 means.

TAM:)

TAM, I respect your contributions enormously, but there is still that acceptance of the myth that widespread fear was provoked by the Bush administration. Bush and Cheney were caught with their pants down on 9/11. After blistering Clinton, quite properly, for his inaction in the face of the Islamist threat, the Republican administration was found to be asleep at the switch. All those Democratic walls that prevented intelligence agencies from coopertaing with one another, walls that Republicans promised to tear down, well, nobody did nuthin'. Bush was deathly afraid, in the wake of 9/11, that a more devastating attack using Iraqi WMD would occur on his watch. He knew that the same people who violently opposed his efforts to strike back at the Islamists would scream the loudest for his impeachment in the event of such an attack. I believe that he understood his mission to be the removal of Saddam Hussein and the permanent resolution of the issue of Iraqi WMD. If anyone was driven by fear, Bush and Cheney were.

[T.A.M.]

TAM, I respect your contributions enormously, but there is still that acceptance of the myth that widespread fear was provoked by the Bush administration. Bush and Cheney were caught with their pants down on 9/11. After blistering Clinton, quite properly, for his inaction in the face of the Islamist threat, the Republican administration was found to be asleep at the switch. All those Democratic walls that prevented intelligence agencies from coopertaing with one another, walls that Republicans promised to tear down, well, nobody did nuthin'. Bush was deathly afraid, in the wake of 9/11, that a more devastating attack using Iraqi WMD would occur on his watch. He knew that the same people who violently opposed his efforts to strike back at the Islamists would scream the loudest for his impeachment in the event of such an attack. I believe that he understood his mission to be the removal of Saddam Hussein and the permanent resolution of the issue of Iraqi WMD. If anyone was driven by fear, Bush and Cheney were.



I do not disagree with what you are saying, though I think your suggestion is only part of what drove the agenda. However, I tend to think that enough evidence (such as Richard Clarke's testimony that Bush was itching to blame Saddam within hours of the attacks, turning a blind eye to what we know now to be weak intelligence on the WMD issue) to implicate, at least, that they had war with Saddam on their minds either before 9/11, or at the very least shortly after (I think the latter). The trouble with this as you know, is that it is all speculation, so I will leave it at that.



I am gonna leave it at that unless you really wanna discuss it further.

TAM:)

Edit:

Just as a side note, worry about impeachment is hardly a valid excuse to go to war, and allow 3000 plus US soldier die for it.

[FineWine]

I do not disagree with what you are saying, though I think your suggestion is only part of what drove the agenda. However, I tend to think that enough evidence (such as Richard Clarke's testimony that Bush was itching to blame Saddam within hours of the attacks, turning a blind eye to what we know now to be weak intelligence on the WMD issue) to implicate, at least, that they had war with Saddam on their minds either before 9/11, or at the very least shortly after (I think the latter). The trouble with this as you know, is that it is all speculation, so I will leave it at that.



I am gonna leave it at that unless you really wanna discuss it further.

TAM:)

Edit:

Just as a side note, worry about impeachment is hardly a valid excuse to go to war, and allow 3000 plus US soldier die for it.




I don't like to argue with the good guys, but worry about a more destructive attack than the 9/11 attacks might be regarded by some reasonable people as a justification for war. I didn't say the issue wasn't complicated.

[T.A.M.]

I don't like to argue with the good guys, but worry about a more destructive attack than the 9/11 attacks might be regarded by some reasonable people as a justification for war. I didn't say the issue wasn't complicated.

Complicated, and as my father always said, Politics and Religion, avoid talking about them like the plague.

TAM:)

[FineWine]

Complicated, and as my father always said, Politics and Religion, avoid talking about them like the plague.

TAM:)


I'm willing to bet that your father was better-liked than I am.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Geggy has been handed his ass so many times in these here parts that he now only posts links and hopes they will make the argument for him.


He's not even very good at that. I vaguely remember instances of him posting links to articles he clearly hadn't even read entirely. In this case, he apparently read the article with his Coke-Bottle Glasses of Truth™, because the message he got from it was painfully distorted to fit his fantasy.

[Juniversal]

I don't understand truthers. One minute the FBI is in on it and the next an FBI employee is some sort of viable source. I guess she was home sick when the other agents were debriefed. :rolleyes:

[Stellafane]

Geggy has been handed his ass so many times in these here parts that he now only posts links and hopes they will make the argument for him.


Still, in a way you have to hand it to geggy, as the dean of 9/11 CTers. Most Truthers would have gotten banned by now.

[T.A.M.]

Still, in a way you have to hand it to geggy, as the dean of 9/11 CTers. Most Truthers would have gotten banned by now.

It's hard to get banned when your posts consist of:

1. a link
2. the words "what do you think about that".

TAM:)