9/11 scepticism

[maxz]

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it,
but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex.

I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

[Unsecured Coins]

you'd lose. You figure such an evil and corrupt government that's able to kill its own citizens, track them all through RFID chips, create natural disasters from Alaska, and creat programmable nanothermite that can deactiavte itself to look like ordinary paint chips would do a better job of waging a war in Afganistan by making the hijackers from there instead of mostly Saudi Arabia.

[Redtail]

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it,
but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex.

I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

What do you find reasonable about suspecting the government?

[uke2se]

Disregarding all evidence, I'd agree that it's as reasonable to suspect the US government as any other individual or organization. However, taking evidence into account, it is no longer reasonable, instead crossing the border into delusion.

[alienentity]

...

I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

Think about what you just wrote. It's a complete copout - a 50 year bet? Who's gonna be around to collect it?

I'd take a 5 year bet from you at 4-1 odds, minimum $1000.00 dollar buy in. Money to be held in escrow account.

Wanna bet? Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.

[Myriad]

Hi, maxz, and welcome to the forums!

So, you 25% believe in a US government false flag 9/11 conspiracy.

But about the terms of that bet: you'd win the bet if during your lifetime 9/11 would be found by whom to have been orchestrated by the government?

There are plenty of individuals and groups (some with "for Truth" in their names, so you know they have to be honest) who claim to have already found that it was a false flag conspiracy by the US government. Does that mean you've already won the bet?

On the other hand if the bet specified that everyone had to agree on the "finding" that 9/11 was a false flag conspiracy by the US government, then you could never win. You cannot get 100% agreement that the earth revolves around the sun, smoking is bad for your health, or (as we've seen in this forum) that the rubble piles at ground zero weren't flat.

So -- this question is more fundamentally important than it might appear at first -- who do you feel is qualified to adjudicate your bet? Whose judgment on the question do you accept? Would a committee made up of history faculty of major universities worldwide be acceptable? A majority vote of the American public? A council of imams from Saudi Arabia? Judge Judy? The panel of investigators named in the original NYCCAN NYC ballot initiative?

Of course if the bet's only against yourself then you can decide whether you "win" on any whim, should you decide at any time that you yourself are convinced one way or the other. But let's say there were another person and actual stakes involved. Who gets to say when and if you've won?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[maxz]

Well I suppose an outright admission of guilt would be required for me to win the bet. The Russians admitted to starting the war on Finland with a false flag operation so I suppose it could happen here too.

I don't know anything about the methodology of history, but if the conspiracy became universally accepted in the same way as other history is, that would be satisfactoy too.

[bill smith]

Suppose some of you debunkers put up something convincing to show that 9/11 was as the government says.

And then I put up something that definitely shows that some shenanigans were afoot ?

In this way the new poster can assess if his bet is a good one.

[maxz]

And then I put up something that definitely shows that some shenanigans were afoot ?


I don't think it's possible for you to posess such evidence.

The bet was just a way for me to illustrate how I feel about the issue, such a bet would be impossible because whether me and the other bettor even live in 50 years is uncertain.

[Sabrina]

Well I suppose an outright admission of guilt would be required for me to win the bet. The Russians admitted to starting the war on Finland with a false flag operation so I suppose it could happen here too.

I don't know anything about the methodology of history, but if the conspiracy became universally accepted in the same way as other history is, that would be satisfactoy too.

Good luck with that.

I mean, considering the fact that even when there's actual EVIDENCE of some sort of misdeed by the government they still attempt to weasel their way out of outright admitting anything, I'd say the likelihood of you actually winning that bet is about... negative infinity. And that's being generous.

ETA: No offense meant, incidentally; I just realized that might appear to be somewhat confrontational. :)

[bill smith]

I don't think it's possible for you to posess such evidence.

Let's see if the debunkers want to play first.

[uke2se]

Let's see if the debunkers want to play first.

Why would we want to do that yet again when this entire forum section is a record of truther claims shown to be false? I'd say you've had your chance. You blew it, son.

[maxz]

Good luck with that.

I mean, considering the fact that even when there's actual EVIDENCE of some sort of misdeed by the government they still attempt to weasel their way out of outright admitting anything, I'd say the likelihood of you actually winning that bet is about... negative infinity. And that's being generous.

ETA: No offense meant, incidentally; I just realized that might appear to be somewhat confrontational. :)


So how come the russians admitted to a false flag operation? What made the circumstances different? They fired with artillery on their own town, seems like pretty bad PR to admit that, even after 50 years.

[Sabrina]

The RUSSIAN government did. We're discussing the US government here. Every time someone is found to have done something wrong in the US government, typically all that happens is excuse after excuse while the person(s) in question are quietly fired or reassigned, depending on their usefulness.

I couldn't speak to why the Russian government admitted to a false flag operation, but given my experience with the US government, the likelihood of them doing the same is about nil.

[maxz]

I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards the account of 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not.

[R.Mackey]

I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not.

Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing.

Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it.

There is abundant support for the idea that the US Government did not cause 9/11. There are hundreds of books. There are thousands of exhibits in criminal trials. There is also a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, and not even a single hypothesis of how the US Government could have caused it that makes a whit of sense.

A skeptic would find this evidence, evaluate it fairly, and conclude that until solid evidence otherwise appears, the US Government did not cause 9/11.

You're not a skeptic.

Homework assignment for you: Go read The Looming Tower, and then tell me how the US Government caused it to happen. It should be in your library if you're too cheap to pick up a copy of your own.

[bill smith]

The RUSSIAN government did. We're discussing the US government here. Every time someone is found to have done something wrong in the US government, typically all that happens is excuse after excuse while the person(s) in question are quietly fired or reassigned, depending on their usefulness.

I couldn't speak to why the Russian government admitted to a false flag operation, but given my experience with the US government, the likelihood of them doing the same is about nil.
Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

[RedIbis]

Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing.

Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it.

[...]

You're not a skeptic.



Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.

[Unsecured Coins]

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposd false flag operation where American citizens on American streets qould be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

as usual, trying to see the forrest through the trees.

[uke2se]

Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.

Uhm, what?

[Sabrina]

Oy. I am so glad bill is on my ignore list, because that level of stupid doesn't deserve a response.

[maxz]

Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing.

Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it.

There is abundant support for the idea that the US Government did not cause 9/11. There are hundreds of books. There are thousands of exhibits in criminal trials. There is also a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, and not even a single hypothesis of how the US Government could have caused it that makes a whit of sense.

A skeptic would find this evidence, evaluate it fairly, and conclude that until solid evidence otherwise appears, the US Government did not cause 9/11.

You're not a skeptic.

Homework assignment for you: Go read The Looming Tower, and then tell me how the US Government caused it to happen. It should be in your library if you're too cheap to pick up a copy of your own.

I am a skeptic, yes I am, I just didn't have enough information, i.e. I was ignorant of all those investigations.

[R.Mackey]

I am a skeptic, yes I am, I just didn't have enough information, i.e. I was ignorant of all those investigations.

That's a bloody poor excuse. You can practically trip over all the information that's put out there.

Again, read The Looming Tower and then get back to us. It's the best place to start with your particular question. Until you know what you're talking about, you're not sufficiently informed to be a skeptic. The world has no responsibility to feed you information intravenously.

[bill smith]

I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards the account of 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not.

It would be reasonable to let the false flag operation I describe above inform your judgement of whether 9/11 itself was a also a false flag operation made in very much the same mould.

[BigAl]

Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.

But you agree that unfought fire was the root cause of the WTC7 collapse, right?

[bill smith]

Oy. I am so glad bill is on my ignore list, because that level of stupid doesn't deserve a response.

It's 100% documented fact Sabrina. That's why you cannot respond.

[maxz]

No I suppose I'm not a skeptic, because the strenght of my belief in something is proportiante to the evidence that I'm aware of and not to the actual evidence. By that token most everyone on this forum could not be a skeptic. Of course the more you study and learn, the better the quality of your beliefs will be, but I don't think that knowledge is required to be a skeptic, it is an epistemological position.

[R.Mackey]

No I suppose I'm not a skeptic, because the strenght of my belief in something is proportiante to the evidence that I'm aware of and not to the actual evidence. By that token most everyone on this forum could not be a skeptic.

Tu Quoque logical fallacy.

You're not a skeptic because the strength of your belief is based on nothing. You are unaware of the evidence, yet you insist your opinion is valid anyway.

You also have no idea what other people do or do not know, yet you're now making claims about that.

Some of us are extremely well read on this subject. You can be too. It just takes a little time and effort on your part. I've told you where to start. The rest is up to you.

[The Platypus]

It's 100% documented fact Sabrina. That's why you cannot respond.

Gee that lie will fool nobody.

[TraneWreck]

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

Lo these many years later, this **** is still spinning around the toilet bowl. Someone needs to jiggle the handle.

[Pardalis]

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic

Are you freaking serious?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ?

No such operation as you describe was ever proposed.

[T.A.M.]

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it,
but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex.

I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

4 to 1 odds? Ok, how about 50 Million? That means you owe me (or my children) 50 Million dollars if this does not come true. I am game.

TAM:D

[T.A.M.]

Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.

Red, you and WTC7...what are we going to do with you.

IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE...

by far, the best, most comprehensive theory on the collapse of WTC7 is the NIST report. It also has the most evidence (albeit not physical in terms of having the suspect column) behind it.

SO barring the production of another theory that makes MORE SENSE, and has more EVIDENCE behind it, I am gonna stick with theirs...as a REAL SKEPTIC would.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

It would be reasonable to let the false flag operation I describe above inform your judgement of whether 9/11 itself was a also a false flag operation made in very much the same mould.

Yes evidenceless based supposition is always a reasonable and rational approach to an investigation, isn't it bill?

For the love of all that is holy.

TAM:boggled:

[Pardalis]

There was no physical evidence for the Columbia shuttle disaster, and yet RedIbis doesn't have a problem accepting the conclusions of the investigation.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4245055&postcount=179

[Sabrina]

No such operation as you describe was ever proposed.

IIRC, it was proposed, but no one signed off on it.

That is, if billy boy is referring to Operation Northwoods, which was never approved and never happened. In which case, billy needs to get the facts of it straight, since the exact scenario he proposed is not what was proposed for Northwoods at all.

[triforcharity]

you'd lose. You figure such an evil and corrupt government that's able to kill its own citizens, track them all through RFID chips, create natural disasters from Alaska, and creat programmable nanothermite that can deactiavte itself to look like ordinary paint chips would do a better job of waging a war in Afganistan by making the hijackers from there instead of mostly Saudi Arabia.

Hey, didn't you get on of those RFID chips? :D:D

[TexasJack]

IIRC, it was proposed, but no one signed off on it.

That is, if billy boy is referring to Operation Northwoods, which was never approved and never happened. In which case, billy needs to get the facts of it straight, since the exact scenario he proposed is not what was proposed for Northwoods at all.

In fact, IIRC, the people that proposed it were fired.

[triforcharity]

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

Actually, the ONE person that brought this up was fired.

Unless, of course, you have some type of proof of this claim?

[Quad4_72]

Strange thread. The thread starter states that he does not know anything about 9/11 but believes that 9/11 was probably an inside job. He then further states that he is indeed a skeptic, but was just ignorant to all of the investigations and didn't have enough information:jaw-dropp

Then he gives us this weird, and somewhat cryptic post:
No I suppose I'm not a skeptic, because the strenght of my belief in something is proportiante to the evidence that I'm aware of and not to the actual evidence. By that token most everyone on this forum could not be a skeptic. Of course the more you study and learn, the better the quality of your beliefs will be, but I don't think that knowledge is required to be a skeptic, it is an epistemological position.

He is obviously very misinformed about what a skeptic is (My guess is he has been talking to Redibis and Bill in his free time. That's just a poor decision for anyone. I don't know what else could possibly be responsible for such a gross misunderstanding of what a skeptic is). Also, I don't think "epistemological" means what he thinks it means...

[Thunder]

but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

#1. you think wrong. there is no hard evidence that the USA orchestrated the 9-11 attacks.

#2. the war is not "on" Afghanistan, but against the Taliban.

suggesting that removing and attacking the Taliban= war ON Afghanistan...... is very interesting.

[ElMondoHummus]

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it,
but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex.


You can say all that if you were operating in the total absence of evidence. You're talking probabilities, and when no information is available, it's legitimate to discuss reasonable suspicions.

Problem is, there is evidence. All of it points at al Qaeda perpetrating the act, none of it points at the US government having been responsible. The Moussaoui trial evidence, the cockpit voice recorders plus the airphone and cellphone calls very clearly place the terrorists in the jets. Much research tracking back from that date establishes the relationships between the hijackers and planners/organizers, as well as many of the individual roles filled by some of the individuals (for example: Khalid Sheik Mohammed was known to be the nuts and bolts planner, Atta was the leader of the terrorists actually carrying out the plan and was handpicked by bin Laden, etc.). And so on.

If there was nothing already disproving the concept of "inside job", then people can indeed put suspicions such as yours on equal footing with other hypotheses. But the state of knowledge is already beyond the point of speculation, and at this point, holding a suspicion of a deliberate false-flag operation on the part of the US is nothing more than constructing a mistaken conclusion that's unsupported by the evidence.


I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized


The probability is 100%. It was deliberately organized by al Qaeda. The evidence is clear on this.


but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

Sucker bet. That wager is already lost. Take those odds at any point in the future, and all you're doing is being a sucker. It'd be quite literally like betting on Lincoln or Kennedy finishing out their terms as President: We already know they didn't, therefore betting otherwise would be foolish.

[Oystein]

...
I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

I'll take that bet and offer you 10.000 US$.

Please contact me privately.

[Oystein]

Well I suppose an outright admission of guilt would be required for me to win the bet. The Russians admitted to starting the war on Finland with a false flag operation so I suppose it could happen here too.

I don't know anything about the methodology of history, but if the conspiracy became universally accepted in the same way as other history is, that would be satisfactoy too.

I am not sure if "the Germans" ever admitted the false flag operation at the Gleiwitz radio mast that kicked of WW2 - at least not that German government which orchestrated the event. It later became generally agreed upon based in historical research, and the pre-war governments of Germany certainly go along with that consensus. But there are still some who disagree and say the Poles dunnit.

Are you in favor of booking only those criminals who confess?

[Oystein]

So how come the russians admitted to a false flag operation? What made the circumstances different? They fired with artillery on their own town, seems like pretty bad PR to admit that, even after 50 years.

I know pretty much nothing about this episode - can you fill me in here? When did the Russians admit this? Which Russians?

The Russians have not long ago finally admitted to the Katyn massacre in Poland, which may be counted as false flag as they used to accuse Nazi Germany of the crime. The reasons are subtle, as everything in politics:
- Stalin fell out of favour long ago, the USSR dissolved
- Everybody knew for the longest time they were lying, so it was a constant embarrassment
- Such moves at the right time can help to further diplomatic and economical ties along.

[Oystein]

No I suppose I'm not a skeptic, because the strenght of my belief in something is proportiante to the evidence that I'm aware of and not to the actual evidence. By that token most everyone on this forum could not be a skeptic. Of course the more you study and learn, the better the quality of your beliefs will be, but I don't think that knowledge is required to be a skeptic, it is an epistemological position.

If your believe of the US government orchestrating 9/11 is greater than zero, and it is proportional to the evidence for it that you are aware of, surely your evidemce is greater than zero. Right?

So what is your evidence? Be specific!

[Oystein]

...
#2. the war is not "on" Afghanistan, but against the Taliban.

suggesting that removing and attacking the Taliban= war ON Afghanistan...... is very interesting.

Actually, this is sophistry.
You could as well say: America fought WW2 not ON Germany and Japan but againt fascist governments. Yet it felt a lot like it when the bombs fell on our cities and our men came home from the western front with amputated limbs.

I am sure glad that America helped liberate us from our self-inflicted dictatorship. But I find it in bad taste to make such fine distinctions to describe war at a top level. There are not-so-benign reasons why the numbers of dead Afghanis are not nearly as diligently reported as those of US soldiers.

[Thunder]

Actually, this is sophistry.
You could as well say: America fought WW2 not ON Germany and Japan but againt fascist governments. Yet it felt a lot like it when the bombs fell on our cities and our men came home from the western front with amputated limbs.
.

the nazis were the democratically elected govt. of Germany. they ruled with a great deal of popular support.

the Taliban, however, were never elected.

[timhau]

So how come the russians admitted to a false flag operation? What made the circumstances different?

Um... the fact that it was the Russian Federation sort of admitting* to something done by the USSR while it was ruled by a Georgian dictator?

*I say 'sort of', because apparently current Russian schoolbooks somehow fail to remember that it wasn't the Finns who shelled Mainila.

[T.A.M.]

The fact that we are discussing false flags....again...is ... Irritating.

TAM

[timhau]

The fact that we are discussing false flags....again...is ... Irritating.

I see. Do you want to confess to something?

[switchpoint]

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

Yeah, you're right!

Maxz:

I remember it now!

It never happened.

Please be informed accordingly.

[bill smith]

Yeah, you're right!

Maxz:

I remember it now!

It never happened.

Please be informed accordingly.

That's right...it didn't happen. In fact President Kennedy turned it down flat. He was no special special friend of the military-industrial complex.He was your very last independent-minded President. Your very last true President. That was in '62. A lot a feathers were ruffled by Kennedy's refusal to go along I believe.

But that is no guarantee that Kennedy's assassination in Dealey Plaza a year later was in any way connected.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ See original documents


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html?q=northwoods.html

Maxz will by now be aware that several posters here were covering this up from him. Think about it Maxz . Why would they do that ?

[Oystein]

the nazis were the democratically elected govt. of Germany.

Hardly

they ruled with a great deal of popular support.

Truer

...
the Taliban, however, were never elected.

Don't underestimate the popularity of the religiously orthodox, and don't overestimate the support for anyone else.



But you missed the point: That you can't make wars on governments without making war on the country. The expression "Collateral damage" (Kollateralschaden) was awarded the prize "Un-word of the year" (Unwort des Jahres) by the Association for the German Language (Gesellschaft für die deutsche Sprache) in 1999. This award goes to expressions and words that were coined or widely used in a year and denote things in a grossly inappropriate way that possibly violates human dignity.

[T.A.M.]

I see. Do you want to confess to something?

Yes....my name is TAM, and I'm a Falseflagaphobic....

TAM:)

[Horatius]

Maxz will by now be aware that several posters here were covering this up from him. Think about it Maxz . Why would they do that ?


And maybe, while thinking about it, he could also think about....



Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.



...why you misrepresented exactly what this proposed, and rejected, plan actually called for?

[switchpoint]

That's right...it didn't happen.

Thanks. Because the President rejected a silly idea. This is now the basis for the 9/11 conspiracy industry - another silly idea.

[W.D.Clinger]

the Taliban, however, were never elected.
The more relevant point is that neither the UN nor the US ever recognized the Taliban government (the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) as a legitimate government of Afghanistan. Furthermore, only three countries ever recognized the Taliban government.

The UN-recognized government was the Islamic State of Afghanistan, which morphed into the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, better known as the Northern Alliance. Hence both Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force were in support of the UN- and US-recognized government of Afghanistan.

[bill smith]

And maybe, while thinking about it, he could also think about....







...why you misrepresented exactly what this proposed, and rejected, plan actually called for?

As a debunker once said to me Horatius, you must learn to read behind the lines.

For 'Cubans' killed on American streets read 'Americans'.

After all The avarage American is not going to agree to attack Cuba because a few Cubans are murdered in Miami.

Do you agree ?

[switchpoint]

As a debunker once said to me Horatius, you must learn to read behind the lines.

For 'Cubans' killed on American streets read 'Americans'.

After all The avarage American is not gong to agree to attack Cuba because a few Cubans are murdered in Miami.

Do you agree ?

Did you read the "front" of the lines - you know, where it said it didn't happen and was rejected as just a silly idea, one of millions proposed over the decades on a wide range of subjects?

[bill smith]

Did you read the "front" of the lines - you know, where it said it didn't happen and was rejected as just a silly idea, one of millions proposed over the decades on a wide range of subjects?


The take-away messages are that America will do things like this and also that Northwoods could have been the germ of the 9/11 False Flag Attack.

By coincidence a bunch of students at the university of Chicago around this time were brainstorming political new ground. The neocon Wolfowitz was there and Feith and possibly Rumsfeld too. Interestingly one of the group gave his final thesis the chilling title of 'How to turn America into a Presidential Dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbour event'.

Interesting eh ?

[TraneWreck]

But you missed the point: That you can't make wars on governments without making war on the country. The expression "Collateral damage" (Kollateralschaden) was awarded the prize "Un-word of the year" (Unwort des Jahres) by the Association for the German Language (Gesellschaft für die deutsche Sprache) in 1999. This award goes to expressions and words that were coined or widely used in a year and denote things in a grossly inappropriate way that possibly violates human dignity.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the difference between "Taliban" and "Afghani" is close to nothing.

One of the more interesting bits of info to come from the recent Wikileaks event was the revelation (perhaps it was already known, new to me) that the Taliban pays its soldiers better than the Allies:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/taliban-vs-afghan-security-forces-compensation-structure/

Thus, someone who is an "Afghani" can become a member of the Taliban merely by seeking a higher pay check. And during those breaks in pay, they're just "Afghanis" again.

The idea that we can wage a war against the Taliban, but not "Afghanistan" is kind of odd. It's not as though everyone self-identifies as "Taliban." It's a poor, tribal society where local people make desperate decisions based on what's in their best interest at any given moment. If that means taking higher pay from the Taliban to provide for a family, then a person who was "Afghanistan" on Tuesday is Taliban on Wednesday.

[dudalb]

you'd lose. You figure such an evil and corrupt government that's able to kill its own citizens, track them all through RFID chips, create natural disasters from Alaska, and creat programmable nanothermite that can deactiavte itself to look like ordinary paint chips would do a better job of waging a war in Afganistan by making the hijackers from there instead of mostly Saudi Arabia.

Not to mention that they would have found a way to "plant" some WMD's during the invasion of Iraq.

[excaza]

The take-away messages are that America will do things like this

Like the gay bomb. Or the plan to kill Castro with exploding seashells.

[Thunder]

The take-away messages are that America will do things like this and also that Northwoods could have been the germ of the 9/11 False Flag Attack.

yeah. because we did not treat blacks at Tuscagee who had syphillus, this means we would therefore kill close to 3,000 Americans in order to start wars which achieve little and cost trillions, and lead to the loss of Congress and the White House for the GOP.

you over-estimate the conspiratorial capabilities of the American people.

[switchpoint]

The take-away messages are that America will do things like this and also that Northwoods could have been the germ of the 9/11 False Flag Attack.

So, your evidence that they will do things like this is that they didn't do things like this? Now thats interesting.

By coincidence a bunch of students at the university of Chicago around this time were brainstorming political new ground. The neocon Wolfowitz was there and Feith and possibly Rumsfeld too. Interestingly one of the group gave his final thesis the chilling title of 'How to turn America into a Presidential Dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbour event'.

Interesting eh ?

If its true, and I doubt it, no not very interesting. Sorry. Sounds more like some idle truther paranoid ranting that the title of a real paper.

[bill smith]

So, your evidence that they will do things like this is that they didn't do things like this? Now thats interesting.



If its true, and I doubt it, no not very interesting. Sorry. Sounds more like some idle truther paranoid ranting that the title of a real paper.
Why don't you do a google search for the exact thesis title as I've given it ? That should tell you it's true

[Horatius]

As a debunker once said to me Horatius, you must learn to read behind the lines.

For 'Cubans' killed on American streets read 'Americans'.



And for "killed on the street", read, "stage assassination attempts that might go so far as to wound people".

And note that you've chosen to completely ignore the issue of "shoot down an American plane full of students", which was actually faking the shootdown of a plane full of students.



The take-away messages are that America will do things like this and also that Northwoods could have been the germ of the 9/11 False Flag Attack.



And the take away message here is that bill smith will continue to lie about what Northwoods actually says, even when being called on his lies.


But by all means, let's let the lurkers decide, eh, bill?

[Horatius]

Why don't you do google search for the exacr thesis title as I've given it ? That should tell you it's true



Let me Google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22How+to+turn+America+into+a+Presidential+Dict atorship+by+manufacturing+a+bogus+Pearl+Harbour+ev ent%22)

One hit. Guess which forum, and thread.


bill smith fail.

[bill smith]

And for "killed on the street", read, "stage assassination attempts that might go so far as to wound people".

And note that you've chosen to completely ignore the issue of "shoot down an American plane full of students", which was actually faking the shootdown of a plane full of students.







And the take away message here is that bill smith will continue to lie about what Northwoods actually says, even when being called on his lies.


But by all means, let's let the lurkers decide, eh, bill?

I prefer to call them 'concerned citizens'.

[Carll68]

And for "killed on the street", read, "stage assassination attempts that might go so far as to wound people".


And, as for 'wound people'..the 'people' that may be 'wounded' in the proposal that was shot down before it even made it to Kennedys desk and thus never occured..well..those people were the actors of the 'staged assassination attempt'..

[bill smith]

Let me Google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22How+to+turn+America+into+a+Presidential+Dict atorship+by+manufacturing+a+bogus+Pearl+Harbour+ev ent%22)

One hit. Guess which forum, and thread.


bill smith fail.

You should really contact google Horatius. America is not China.lol


But then we know about the American media don't we ? It's lucky you guys don't mind.

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=How+to+turn+America+into+a+Presidential+Dictator ship+by+manufacturing+a+bogus+Pearl+Harbour+event&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= google Europe


I wonder what other advantages ''simplification'' of the internet will bring for Americans. There are so many nasty things out there that you need to be screened from. The government and their media partners are paid to make your choices for you. Remember the new FOX slogan '' You recline, we opine ''

[Horatius]

Interestingly one of the group gave his final thesis the chilling title of 'How to turn America into a Presidential Dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbour event'.

Interesting eh ?

Why don't you do a google search for the exact thesis title as I've given it ? That should tell you it's true

You should really contact google. America is not China.lol


But then we know about the American media don't we ? It's lucky you guys don't mind.



http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=How+to+turn+America+into+a+Presidential+Dictator ship+by+manufacturing+a+bogus+Pearl+Harbour+event&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= google Europe



Notice that bill hasn't included quote marks in that search, so he hasn't, in fact, Googled "the exact title".


Why? (http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm)


SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.



Because he can't even do something as simple as distinguishing the title of this alleged thesis from its subject.

And you'll all note the source for this claim: rense.com quoting an interview with Alex Jones.....

Let's learn a bit about this Stanley Hilton character...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton#Current_career

Current career

Stanley Hilton has been suspended from the practice of law by the California State Bar pending full disbarment proceedings. Initiating documents relative to charges that involve moral turpitude are posted on the State Bar website[7] (external link below). Former clients may wish to contact the California State Bar disciplinary committee.

http://www.oilempire.us/hilton.html

Stanley Hilton is a fraud.
I have never met a more seemingly incompetent or kooky lawyer than Stanley Hilton.
Stanley Hilton fabricated legal elements in my name for his 911 lawsuit.


A word of warning to all those who are ecstatic and jumping over Stanley Hilton's so-called revelations. He and Jones combined are extremely dangerous. Recently, Jones wrote a piece on Patriot II that was full of fabrications and shameless distortions. Jones even fabricated a section of bill S22 that he said was going to call for the mandatory registration of all firearms in the country. The bill actually contained a specific provision prohibiting that.
His interview with Hilton was full of just as many distortions...



http://www.wired.com/cars/cars_blog/news/2009/11/airport-divorce-lawsuit

Hilton has a law degree from Duke University and is a former civil litigation attorney with more than three decades as an active member of the California State Bar. He served as a counsel to Sen. Bob Dole from 1979-80



http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=65990


Yeah, a "real insider" there. And a piece of work....


And of course, there doesn't seem to be any copies of that thesis floating around. You'd think the bill smiths of the world would love to have that to throw in our faces, wouldn't you? If it existed, that is.

[switchpoint]

You should really contact google Horatius. America is not China.lol


But then we know about the American media don't we ? It's lucky you guys don't mind.

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=How+to+turn+America+into+a+Presidential+Dictator ship+by+manufacturing+a+bogus+Pearl+Harbour+event&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= google Europe


I wonder what other advantages ''simplification'' of the internet will bring for Americans. There are so many nasty things out there that you need to be screened from. The government and their media partners are paid to make your choices for you. Remember the new FOX slogan '' You recline, we opine ''

Yep, nothing. No paper with that title. Just some reference to a disbarred and disgraced former attorney and certifiable nutjob that sued Jay Leno for a bad joke.

[bill smith]

I have chapter and verse on Stanley Hilton but i will just make this short note/

Hilton filed a case against Bush and friends on behalf of 400 of the 9/11 family embers amongst others. The case was duly filed and all defendants were served (including Bush)

But a tame judge eventually threw the case out. On what grounds you ask ?

The grounds of 'Sovereign Immunity' (Like the King gets dontcha know).(I wonder how it sits with your bedraggled Constitution) So he never had to answer the charges in a court. The questions are still wide open.

[switchpoint]

I have chapter and verse on Stanley Hilton but i will just make this short note/

Hilton filed a case against Bush and friends on behalfof 400 of the 9/11 family embers amonst others. The case was duly filed and all defendents were served (including Bush)

But a tame judge threw the case out. On what grounds you ask ?

The grounds of 'Sovereign Immunity' (Like the King gets dontcha know).(I wonder how it sits with your bedraggled Constitution) So he never had to answer the charges in a court. The questions are still wide open.

Yeah, why am I having trouble believing that's true too? Are you going to make me look up the opinion or will you just tell the truth?

[Captain_Swoop]

'How to turn America into a Presidential Dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbour event'.

Didn't work did it?

[bill smith]

Yeah, why am I having trouble believing that's true too? Are you going to make me look up the opinion or will you just tell the truth?
The jref is the very last place on Earth that I would try to convince a debunker.
I have given you enough so check it out (or more likely don't).

[bill smith]

Well Maxz i guess if you have read this far you know that 9/11 was an inside job and your bet is money in the bank in 50 years.Ciao

[switchpoint]

The jref is the very last place on Earth that I would try to convince a debunker.

Or tell the truth.

I have given you enough so check it out (or more likely don't).

No, I am just going to believe you and assume that the ONLY reason the suit was dismissed was because the courts recognize G.W. Bush as the King of America. Makes sense to me.

[McHrozni]

but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

I wholeheartedly disagree. You might be of that opinion, but anyone with enough cognitive ability to be able to think will not say something this stupid. I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but it's a fact.

McHrozni

[Brainster]

Actually, the ONE person that brought this up was fired.

I have seen this said a few times on JREF and as far as I can determine, it appears to be incorrect. Consider:

1. Lemnitzer stepped down as Chairman of the JCOS on September 30, 1962. As this is also the date that the government's fiscal year ends, it appears to be a common date for heads of JCOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_of_the_Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff) to be reassigned.

2. Lemnitzer was named Supreme Allied Commander of NATO two months after leaving the JCOS.

3. Given that Lemnitzer had specifically been requested to provide a "pretext" for US military intervention in Cuba, it seems a bit rough to imply that Operation Northwoods was some sort of rogue recommendation that appalled the political people so much that they got rid of him.

[Horatius]

Yeah, why am I having trouble believing that's true too? Are you going to make me look up the opinion or will you just tell the truth?

No, I am just going to believe you and assume that the ONLY reason the suit was dismissed was because the courts recognize G.W. Bush as the King of America. Makes sense to me.


Like most things, bill only tells the part of the truth that supports his propaganda.

http://www.indymedia.nl/en/2006/04/35339.shtml

[fess]

Well Maxz i guess if you have read this far you know that* 9/11 was an inside job and your bet is money in the bank in 50 years.Ciao

*B.S. has not made a meaningful statement so for, and if you keep your money in a safe place, it may actually be worth something in 50 years.

[Fonebone]

The RUSSIAN government did. We're discussing the US government here. Every time someone is found to have done something wrong in the US government, typically all that happens is excuse after excuse while the person(s) in question are quietly fired or reassigned, depending on their usefulness.

...As was the case after 9/11 --- PROMOTED !

I couldn't speak to why the Russian government admitted to a false flag operation, but given my experience with the US government, the likelihood of them doing the same is about nil.

Glasnost ?

[bill smith]

Like most things, bill only tells the part of the truth that supports his propaganda.

http://www.indymedia.nl/en/2006/04/35339.shtml

The point is that an accredited highly respected lawyer of 30 years who was chief-of-staff to Bob Dole thought the case strong enough to bring by representing amongst others 400 9/11 family members. (unmentioned in the indy article). He was the author of the thesis ''how to turn America into a Presidential Dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbour event'. At the time he was a member of the same University group that comprised Wolfowitz, Feith and possibly Rumsfeld and was in the best of positions to know their thinking. He had no trouble recognising what had happened on 9/11. Sure hadn't he basically written the book on it himself ?

Have you searched American Youtube/Google for video of Hilton ? Do you find many referances ?

But Readers we should not let ourseves be distracted by propaganda such as comes from Horatius and many other debunkers who I could name and who you most likely recognise yourselves..

Their function is to discredit anybody who challenges the OCT. This Propaganda is used by many debunkers and TV hosts and is highly recognisable .It seldom deals at any length with the subject matter and concentrates on belittling the target See example video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UriV7BD-kbY a fair hearing


The propaganda is meant to distact from the core facts. The case was duly filed by a top-notch law firm. It had merit or it would nothave been filed, All defendants were all served including Bush, The media totally undereported it .The case was dismissed on very shaky grounds. The President has never had to answer the numerous enormous questions that the case brought up.

[Horatius]

The point is that an accredited currently disbarred highly respected seemingly incompetent or kooky lawyer of 30 years who was chief-of-staff served as a counsel to Bob Dole thirty years ago thought the case strong enough to bring by representing amongst others 400 9/11 family members. (unmentioned in the indy article). He was allegedly the author of the a thesis about ''how to turn America into a Presidential Dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbour event'. At the time he was a member of the same University group that comprised attending the same University as Wolfowitz, Feith and possibly Rumsfeld as well as thousands of other people and was in the best of no positions to know their thinking. He had no trouble recognising what had happened on 9/11. Sure hadn't he basically written the book on it himself ?

....propaganda .... This Propaganda ...
The propaganda ...



Speaking of propaganda......Ignore all the actual evidence that this guy has no great insider information, gnore all the actual evidence that he is, in fact, an unethical sleaze bag, believe everything positive anyone has ever said about him, deliberately inflate even those positive things, make bald assertions about what he knows, and ignore the fact that he's never proven any of this, even when he took it into a court of law.

Oh, and note, bill has once again chosen to address one small part of my post, and ignore the larger part, which he is incapable of addressing, as he knows he's full of it.

[bill smith]

Speaking of propaganda......Ignore all the actual evidence that this guy has no great insider information, gnore all the actual evidence that he is, in fact, an unethical sleaze bag, believe everything positive anyone has ever said about him, deliberately inflate even those positive things, make bald assertions about what he knows, and ignore the fact that he's never proven any of this, even when he took it into a court of law.

Oh, and note, bill has once again chosen to address one small part of my post, and ignore the larger part, which he is incapable of addressing, as he knows he's full of it.

The discriminating Reader will have noticed by now that Horatius has neatly confirmed his propaganda mouthpiece status. He has pretty well validated everything I wrote in this paragraph exerpted from my last post.


''The propaganda is meant to distract from the core facts. For instance The case was duly filed by a top-notch law firm. It had merit or it would not have been filed, All defendants were served including Bush, The media totally undereported it .The case was dismissed on very shaky grounds. The President has never had to answer the numerous enormous questions that the case brought up. ''

But of course Horatius persists as expected in vicious ad hominem attacks on the lawyer who represented the plaintiffs.

[T.A.M.]

Bill are you serious? What a load oF crap, even from you. I almost sPit out my coffee laughing at that...top notch law firm....had merit or wouldnt have been filed...lol

TAM:D

[T.A.M.]

The discriminating Reader will have noticed by now that Horatius has neatly confirmed his propaganda mouthpiece status. He has pretty well validated everything I wrote in this paragraph exerpted from my last post.


''The propaganda is meant to distract from the core facts. For instance The case was duly filed by a top-notch law firm. It had merit or it would not have been filed, All defendants were served including Bush, The media totally undereported it .The case was dismissed on very shaky grounds. The President has never had to answer the numerous enormous questions that the case brought up. ''

But of course Horatious persists as expected in vicious ad hominem attacks on the lawyer who represented the plaintiffs.

In the above piece of guano, which you say represents the "core FACTS", the following parts of it are pure opinion, not facts.

Top notch
Had merit or would not have been filed
Media underreported it
Shaky grounds

So out of your 3-4 lines of verbal emesis, only about 10-12 words are truthful or factual.

Nice...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

The discriminating Reader will have noticed by now that Horatius has neatly confirmed his propaganda mouthpiece status. He has pretty well validated everything I wrote in this paragraph exerpted from my last post.


''The propaganda is meant to distract from the core facts. For instance The case was duly filed by a top-notch law firm. It had merit or it would not have been filed, All defendants were served including Bush, The media totally undereported it .The case was dismissed on very shaky grounds. The President has never had to answer the numerous enormous questions that the case brought up. ''

But of course Horatius persists as expected in vicious ad hominem attacks on the lawyer who represented the plaintiffs.

Here is an accurate, unopinionate description of what happened,

"the case was filed by a law firm. All defendants including george bush were served. The media covered the event. The case was dismissed. The president still hasn't answer some questions people have concerning the case."

TAM:)

[Horatius]

The discriminating Reader will have noticed by now that Horatius has neatly confirmed his propaganda mouthpiece status. He has pretty well validated everything I wrote in this paragraph exerpted from my last post.



The fun part is, I can say the exact same thing about you.

As always, though, taking a look at the facts will show that you're full of it.




''The propaganda is meant to distract from the core facts. For instance The case was duly filed by a top-notch law firm. It had merit or it would not have been filed, All defendants were all served including Bush, The media totally undereported it .The case was dismissed on very shaky grounds. The President has never had to answer the numerous enormous questions that the case brought up. ''




"It had merit or it would not have been filed" Oh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation) Really (http://lawsuit.no/archive.html)?


"The case was dismissed on very shaky grounds" Again, bill ignores that that isn't the whole story.


But of course Horatious persists as expected in vicious ad hominem attacks on the lawyer who represented the plaintiffs.


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

An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.


Pointing out that a bad lawsuit was filed by a bad lawyer is hardly "irrelevant to the opponent's argument", and questions about his "personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue", when all we have to consider is his unsupported assertions on this issue.

Of course, bill could shut me up by showing us that the "thesis" he discusses actually exists, but he won't ever actually do that, as it's a virtual certainty that bill has never seen it, and is merely parroting what seems to him to be good propaganda.


And while we're pointing out alleged fallacies, consider bill's characterizations of this fellow in light of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Inverse_ad_hominem

An inverse ad hominem argument praises a source in order to add support for that source's argument or claim

[bill smith]

The fun part is, I can say the exact same thing about you.

As always, though, taking a look at the facts will show that you're full of it.







"It had merit or it would not have been filed" Oh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation) Really (http://lawsuit.no/archive.html)?


"The case was dismissed on very shaky grounds" Again, bill ignores that that isn't the whole story.





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






Pointing out that a bad lawsuit was filed by a bad lawyer is hardly "irrelevant to the opponent's argument", and questions about his "personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue", when all we have to consider is his unsupported assertions on this issue.

Of course, bill could shut me up by showing us that the "thesis" he discusses actually exists, but he won't ever actually do that, as it's a virtual certainty that bill has never seen it, and is merely parroting what seems to him to be good propaganda.


And while we're pointing out alleged fallacies, consider bill's characterizations of this fellow in light of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Inverse_ad_hominem

I'm not going to waste any more time on you for now Horatius.

I would just ask the Readers whether they think a case like this involving the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Americans could be laid against the President of America if it was considered without merit ? Including the President actually being served ?

Note that TAM and Horatius think it could be so and are humbly requesting that you think so too. Propaganda most foul.

"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia, it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid seeing ugly realities they’d sooner not believe.”

[T.A.M.]

Bill,

My point was simply to show you how hypocritical you are. Your little blurb was FULL of inflammatory descriptors placed there SOLELY to try to sway the reader...if that's not propaganda, then i don't know what is.

TAM:)

[Horatius]

Propaganda most foul.

"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia, it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid seeing ugly realities they’d sooner not believe.”



And I'll leave people to wonder at your reasons for poisoning the well.


"Oh dear, I must not point out his obvious falsehoods, as he might accuse me of propaganda!"

[bill smith]

Bill,

My point was simply to show you how hypocritical you are. Your little blurb was FULL of inflammatory descriptors placed there SOLELY to try to sway the reader...if that's not propaganda, then i don't know what is.

TAM:)

The jref 9/11 subforum is the heart of OCT propaganda and is well known for it. Here's another accurate description of propaganda and it's use in a situation like
9/11 for instance.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

[MRC_Hans]

The take-away messages are that America will do things like this and also that Northwoods could have been the germ of the 9/11 False Flag Attack.Ehr, no. The take-away message is that somebody could suggest things like this, but so far America would NOT do it.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

I would just ask the Readers whether they think a case like this involving the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Americans could be laid against the President of America if it was considered without merit ? Including the President actually being served ?


Are you saying that because some people claim it, it must have merit?

That is one of the most silly arguments I have ever heard.

Hans

[T.A.M.]

The jref 9/11 subforum is the heart of OCT propaganda and is well known for it. Here's another accurate description of propaganda and it's use in a situation like
9/11 for instance.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

I am not going to get into a quote war with you Bill. For every quote you post i could easily come up with one to defend my side of the argument...it is silly, and juvenile.

So far, the audience of readers you care so much about has basically read your posts full of zero content, zero evidence, and are probably thinking, "this guy is simply a blowhard."

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't care for quotes. It's unbelievably stupid to argue that pure faith in political leaders should have anything to do with demonstrating that these conspiracy theorists have absolutely no case. Those that argue this grossly underestimate the diversity of political ideology.

No politics required to talk about engineering :\

[T.A.M.]

I don't care for quotes. It's unbelievably stupid to argue that pure faith in political leaders should have anything to do with demonstrating that these conspiracy theorists have absolutely no case. Those that argue this grossly underestimate the diversity of political ideology.

No politics required to talk about engineering :\

Yes but you see, to the CTist, engineering is the least of their concerns. Their entire argument syllabus is based on supposition and speculation. Facts, as much as bill likes to indicate he considers paramount, are the exact opposite of what the typical truther relies on.

TAM:)

[Thunder]

The jref 9/11 subforum is the heart of OCT propaganda and is well known for it.

#1. prove it.

#2. does this make us criminal co-conspirators???? ;););):p:p:p

[uke2se]

I would just ask the Readers whether they think a case like this involving the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Americans could be laid against the President of America if it was considered without merit ? Including the President actually being served ?


Most definitely, yes. Taking a case to court and having it dismissed doesn't require that you have a case. Taking a case to court and having a trial does.

This case appears to have been filed for propaganda purposes by a politically driven and possibly insane person wishing to appeal to truthers.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The jref 9/11 subforum is the heart of OCT propaganda and is well known for it. Here's another accurate description of propaganda and it's use in a situation like 9/11 for instance.

We're not retarded or stupid to hand out propaganda papers to people on the streets like you nutjobs have done near Ground Zero. You don't see us poking fun at the 9/11 Families or making fun/mocking thier loved ones who died in the Towers, the Pentagon & on all 4 hijacked planes.

No you don't see us doing those kinds of things. We have a better service, which is to point out inconsistencies & lies, within the Truth Movement.

Either you've got the evidence to support your retarded theories or you don't. You can't expect people to believe you without evidence Bill. Now if you had the evidence then you could go on, but we all know that what you say is utter garbage & outright lies.

So live with the fact that you have nothing to offer us & you have no credible evidence to back up your statements.

[The Platypus]

It's these cult drones the run around passing out CDs and pamphlets on the street corners that are full of every cheesy propaganda 101 tactics there is. It's these cult drones that sent me rambling spam about their conspiracies. It's these cult drones having their pathetic little gatherings trying to get attention. It's these cult drones that vandalize property with graffiti and run around the internet making pests of themselves. It's these cult drones that make no secret that they are on a mission to recruit everyone into their cult, which is their very purpose for being here and putting on their non stop song and dance performances, ranting and raving. This is what cults program their minions to do, to go out and obsessively try to find more people for the cult master to fleece. Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and the like need more money...

Meanwhile, I have never ever even seen a trace of the Jref outside of this website/forums. No one from here has ever stopped me on the street to give me pamphlets, no one from here is trying to give or sell me cds constantly either. No one from here is vandalizing property with graffiti, i've never even seen one piece of jref sub-forum graffiti at all. I don't know any of these people on this sub-forum, no one from here has bothered me on the streets or all over the internet. No one here has ever sent me rambling spam and I have never had anyone from "jref sub-forums" try to repeatedly pester me constantly to convert me, insulting me constantly while doing so, even moreso if i doubt them, trying to bully, manipulate, trick, scam me into joining them. Noone here is telling me to live in fear of imaginary boogiemen or else!

Why do Bill and many other drones persist in trying to play some lame attempt at reverse psychology that so pathetically done it's mind boggling. Here he is accusing this one little minor sub-forum, that most of the world doesn't even know exists, of being the very "heart" of propaganda of the regurgitated laughable acronym of "OCT", and is even "known for it". How could i possibly not see that it is you and the cult your in that are the ones lying about this whole thing Bill???. How can i not see that you are clearly dishonest and delusional?

Seriously, WOW, talk about not being in reality. You've lost your grip on reality Bill, completely...

[T.A.M.]

Most of their lives are pathetic WITH 9/11 truth in it....imagine what their lives would be like without it. There in lies the answer as to why they keep doing it.

TAM:)

[TraneWreck]

I'm not going to waste any more time on you for now Horatius.

[...]

"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia, it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid seeing ugly realities they’d sooner not believe.”

You're as confused about legal process as the goofball that filed that suit.

First of all, sovereign immunity is one of the many concepts we adopted from English common law. It's a bit older than 9-11.

Additionally, the United States partially waived its immunity through the Federal Tort Claims Act:

Liability under the FTCA is limited to "circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

I know this will cause your overactive paranoia gland to excrete gallons of silly-hormone, but the Act was passed in the aftermath of the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. SPOOOOOOOKY!!!

But notice that failure to meet the requirements of FTCA is something like a dismissal on the merits. There was not enough evidence presented to show that "the United States, if a private person," would be liable to whoever filed that suit.

There are adequate processes to deal with a criminal executive. See Nixon, Richard. It's probably not all that satisfying, given the pardon, but such is life. We have plenty of evidence for Nixon's crimes, hell, we have plenty of evidence for a serious criminal investigation into torture under the Bush Administration, we have NO evidence that 9-11 was a tortious act by Bush.

[Quad4_72]

Looks like this thread ended up being a drive by twoofing for maxc. I must say, this is the strangest drive by twoofing I have ever seen.

[bill smith]

You're as confused about legal process as the goofball that filed that suit.

First of all, sovereign immunity is one of the many concepts we adopted from English common law. It's a bit older than 9-11.

Additionally, the United States partially waived its immunity through the Federal Tort Claims Act:


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

I know this will cause your overactive paranoia gland to excrete gallons of silly-hormone, but the Act was passed in the aftermath of the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. SPOOOOOOOKY!!!

But notice that failure to meet the requirements of FTCA is something like a dismissal on the merits. There was not enough evidence presented to show that "the United States, if a private person," would be liable to whoever filed that suit.

There are adequate processes to deal with a criminal executive. See Nixon, Richard. It's probably not all that satisfying, given the pardon, but such is life. We have plenty of evidence for Nixon's crimes, hell, we have plenty of evidence for a serious criminal investigation into torture under the Bush Administration, we have NO evidence that 9-11 was a tortious act by Bush.

So Bush in his capacity as President IS the United States ? So who can he be made to answer to ? The taxpayer ? Evidently not. 'Sovereign Immunity ' is literally a get-out-of-jail-free gold card. He answers to nobody.

The obvious implication is that he COULD have carried out 9/11 AND walked away from it using his get-out-of-jail-free card.

And he did......

Only in America.........

[Thunder]

I was all over Prague and Vienna. Two major cities in Europe. I saw not one single 9-11 Truth sticker, grafitti, etc. Oh well.

:)

[uke2se]

The obvious implication is that he COULD have carried out 9/11 AND walked away from it using his get-out-of-jail-free card.

And he did......


No. No, he didn't. You see, just because you say something is true, that doesn't make it true. You need these things called "evidence" which you apparently don't have.

[DGM]

So Bush in his capacity as President IS the United States ? So who can he be made to answer to ? The taxpayer ? Evidently not. 'Sovereign Immunity ' is literally a get-out-of-jail-free gold card. He answers to nobody.

The obvious implication is that he COULD have carried out 9/11 AND walked away from it using his get-out-of-jail-free card.

And he did......

Only in America.........
How do you explain the fact Bin Laden was wanted before Bush became president? In fact most of the "set-up" for this was.

[bynmdsue]

How do you explain the fact Bin Laden was wanted before Bush became president? In fact most of the "set-up" for this was.

His appearance in HANNIBAL was to cause the viewer to unconciously connect the two (Lecter and Osama) to make us hate him even more!

[The Platypus]

So Bush in his capacity as President IS the United States ? So who can he be made to answer to ? The taxpayer ? Evidently not. 'Sovereign Immunity ' is literally a get-out-of-jail-free gold card. He answers to nobody.

The obvious implication is that he COULD have carried out 9/11 AND walked away from it using his get-out-of-jail-free card.

And he did......

Only in America.........

Nice how he goes from "could" happen to what "did" happen in one line with nothing to prove that. This is how their cult minds are programmed, just make up this crap and then instantly believe it to be fact.

So Bill, since you believe without a doubt that Bush is some evil mass murderer and getting away with it, why are you sitting here whining to us about it? Why don't you get off your butt and go get him, or do something about it yourself? Why isn't your entire cult doing anything but whining on the internet, out of all of you, not one has or will step up to the plate to do anything about, or too, a man you completely believe is a mass murdering evil sob.

Where's all that noble self inflated, courageous arrogance song and dance of being the ones that will save the world now, or it that all just fake performances and bluster? You and your cult run around constantly attacking the public that doesn't believe you, meanwhile how much worse is it when you actually believe all these claims of evil tyranny to be true and you do nothing. Why aren't any of you after who you think is "the enemy" instead?

[Captain_Swoop]

So Bush in his capacity as President IS the United States ? So who can he be made to answer to ? The taxpayer ? Evidently not. 'Sovereign Immunity ' is literally a get-out-of-jail-free gold card. He answers to nobody.

The obvious implication is that he COULD have carried out 9/11 AND walked away from it using his get-out-of-jail-free card.

And he did......

Only in America.........

Like nixon got away with it?
Hang on, he didn't He was made to answer. Remember 'Impeachment'?

You just need to get some real evidence, the type that will stand up in a court.

[Thunder]

The obvious implication is that he COULD have carried out 9/11 AND walked away from it using his get-out-of-jail-free card.

And he did......


prove it.

[LizardLover]

Is it a coincidence that bill smiths initials would be BS?

[The Platypus]

Is it a coincidence that bill smiths initials would be BS?

coincidence? I think not....

[KingMerv00]

Regarding false flag attacks:

Imagine you are on trial for robbing a bank. You mugged someone 40 years ago. Does that mugging prove you robbed the bank?

[Thunder]

its interesting how truthers believe that because bad things happened in the past, it means all current accusations of bad things MUST be true.

the Reichstag was burned by the Nazis. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

the Lusitania has munitions for the British on board. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

Pentagon officials considered false-flag attacks to motivate an invasion of Cuba. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

The Germans falsefied a Polish attack on Germany. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

[twinstead]

its interesting how truthers believe that because bad things happened in the past, it means all current accusations of bad things MUST be true.

the Reichstag was burned by the Nazis. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

the Lusitania has munitions for the British on board. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

Pentagon officials considered false-flag attacks to motivate an invasion of Cuba. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

The Germans falsefied a Polish attack on Germany. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

When I was a kid, my older brother blamed me for breaking the lamp when it was he who did it. Therefore 9-11 was an inside job.

[Oystein]

Regarding false flag attacks:

Imagine you are on trial for robbing a bank. You mugged someone 40 years ago. Does that mugging prove you robbed the bank?

No. You didn't mug someone 40 years ago. More apt would be this: You had asked a friend 40 years ago for ideas on how to scare the little boy next door away, your friend drew up a plan to fake the mugging of someone else and blame the little boy next door, you rejected that plan, and the two of you are no longer friends, you died 39 years ago, but the little boy still lives next door. That proves you robbed a bank.

:D

[Dave Rogers]

No. You didn't mug someone 40 years ago. More apt would be this: You had asked a friend 40 years ago for ideas on how to scare the little boy next door away, your friend drew up a plan to fake the mugging of someone else and blame the little boy next door, you rejected that plan, and the two of you are no longer friends, you died 39 years ago, but the little boy still lives next door. That proves you robbed a bank.

:D

About thirty years ago, I had one of those drunken conversations in the pub with a few friends in which we planned out how, if we'd been doing the Great Train Robbery, we'd have done a much better job of it. By the end of the evening we'd worked out a complete plan for the robbery and the getaway. Next time there's a big robbery, should I expect the police to come knocking on my door?

Dave

[excaza]

So Bush in his capacity as President IS the United States ? So who can he be made to answer to ? The taxpayer ? Evidently not. 'Sovereign Immunity ' is literally a get-out-of-jail-free gold card. He answers to nobody.

The sheer stupidity of this is just...depressing.

[Horatius]

About thirty years ago, I had one of those drunken conversations in the pub with a few friends in which we planned out how, if we'd been doing the Great Train Robbery, we'd have done a much better job of it. By the end of the evening we'd worked out a complete plan for the robbery and the getaway. Next time there's a big robbery, should I expect the police to come knocking on my door?

Dave



Well, now you should.




Man, Evil is Stupid sometimes.......:D

[T.A.M.]

its interesting how truthers believe that because bad things happened in the past, it means all current accusations of bad things MUST be true.

the Reichstag was burned by the Nazis. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

the Lusitania has munitions for the British on board. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

Pentagon officials considered false-flag attacks to motivate an invasion of Cuba. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

The Germans falsefied a Polish attack on Germany. therefore, 9-11 was an inside job. :)

It is easier for them to accept that all the horrific things in the world over time were planned...by some evil enemy, then to accept that horrible things can simply just happen.

TAM:)

[Miragememories]

It's all about pretext.

Read a bit of history and you'll soon realize that pretext is an old tactic.

It provides an excuse to pursue a goal that otherwise would be opposed by the majority.

The Reichstag burning was a pretext for Hitler to gain control of the German government and suppress opposition.

9/11 was a pretext for the Bush administration to prosecute war and suppress opposition.

Get the people pumped for war and they'll be eating out of your hands.

MM

[X]

Why do truthers equate supporting the "OCT" (to use their terminology) with blindly supporting every single thing the government does?


Accepting reality != giving carte blanche to the government.

Especially since it isn't my government. Oh Canada, Our home and native land....

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So Bush in his capacity as President IS the United States ? So who can he be made to answer to ? The taxpayer ? Evidently not. 'Sovereign Immunity ' is literally a get-out-of-jail-free gold card. He answers to nobody.

The obvious implication is that he COULD have carried out 9/11 AND walked away from it using his get-out-of-jail-free card.

And he did......

Only in America.........

What does it matter to you that the people in the U.S. vote for someone to be in office, Bill? The U.S. Constitution doesn't state that a president should have authority above his people. The U.S. people make the choice, not the president. Ever heard the "Freedom of Speech", Bill? Don't you know that the first words in the U.S. Constitution says: "We the People...."?

You don't want to learn about the U.S. Constitution, Bill:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Read the hilited section Bill:

Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

How can the President of the U.S. have so little power when it's up to the Senate & Congress to decide things, Bill?

Bill, can you agree that what you Truthers are doing is treasoness? Let me educate you a little bit from the U.S. Constitution on what it says about treason against the U.S. And please read the hilited area.:

Article 3, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

You are adhering to our enemies Bill, you know who our enemies are don't you? Ok, let me make it simple for you to understand.

You claim that the U.S. did 9/11 to itself, you claim that the Terrorist are free of the crime. So what does that tell everyone in the world about your political views? You'd rather want bloodshed from the Terrorist rather than freedom, liberty & peace.

I could go on & on about the U.S. Constitution Bill & prove you wrong at every turn. But I'd rather if you make the mistake first by opening your mind about these stupid conspiracy theories.

[BigAl]

It's all about pretext.

Read a bit of history and you'll soon realize that pretext is an old tactic.

It provides an excuse to pursue a goal that otherwise would be opposed by the majority.

The Reichstag burning was a pretext for Hitler to gain control of the German government and suppress opposition.

9/11 was a pretext for the Bush administration to prosecute war and suppress opposition.

Get the people pumped for war and they'll be eating out of your hands.

MM

None of your platitudes do the slightest to make the huge amount of evidence that shows that 19 Islamists lead by bin Laden executed 9/11 go away.

None of your platitudes do the slightest to make the fact that bin Laden publicly declared war on the U.S. and Saudi Arabia 10 years prior to 2001 go away. bin Laden was responsible for the death of hundreds of Americans and Saudis prior to 2001.

[Horatius]

It's all about pretext.

Read a bit of history and you'll soon realize that pretext is an old tactic.

It provides an excuse to pursue a goal that otherwise would be opposed by the majority.

The Reichstag burning was a pretext for Hitler to gain control of the German government and suppress opposition.

9/11 was a pretext for the Bush administration to prosecute war and suppress opposition.

Get the people pumped for war and they'll be eating out of your hands.

MM


And why must we go from "pretext" to "conspiracy"? Why do you assume they must have caused the event they use a pretext, rather than simply exploiting a cause that arose via the efforts of other actors?

[twinstead]

mm your cause would be greatly helped if there weren't such a freakin' HUGE amount of evidence that Bin Laden and Al Queda were behind 9-11. You are (on purpose?) turning the issue into a political one, and to me showing that your world view simply cannot accept that 9-11 wasn't an inside job, no matter what the evidence shows.

Nothing wrong with politics, and nothing wrong with being true to yourself, but sheesh--choose your battles dude.

[Thunder]

9/11 was a pretext for the Bush administration to prosecute war and suppress opposition.

um..that doesn't mean 9-11 was an inside job.

[TheGnome]

I have signed up on this board a year ago and spent quite a lot of time here but this is only my 3rd post so i can be characterized as a lurker or reader. So i feel addressed when a poster calls for the reader to form his own opinion, like bill smith did in this thread.

There are 2 things i would like to say in this respect:

1) In some places this can be a rhetoric tool but a debate is not the place for it. To me it sounds a bit like a fallacy.

2) I got the impression it is used mainly by truthers when they feel they have not enough real arguments. Now when sombody is just a lurker and does not post, he has probably no strong objection to what is said on the forum, or he would have posted before, and would not just be a lurker anymore. Here on jref that means he is most certainly not a truther. So i think BS is just calling the wrong people for support.

[bill smith]

I have signed up on this board a year ago and spent quite a lot of time here but this is only my 3rd post so i can be characterized as a lurker or reader. So i feel addressed when a poster calls for the reader to form his own opinion, like bill smith did in this thread.

There are 2 things i would like to say in this respect:

1) In some places this can be a rhetoric tool but a debate is not the place for it. To me it sounds a bit like a fallacy.

2) I got the impression it is used mainly by truthers when they feel they have not enough real arguments. Now when sombody is just a lurker and does not post, he has probably no strong objection to what is said on the forum, or he would have posted before, and would not just be a lurker anymore. Here on jref that means he is most certainly not a truther. So i think BS is just calling the wrong people for support.

It may seem odd that I post here given that this is the heart of the OCT propaganda machine. But if I were to post on Truther sites I would only be preaching to the choir. I believe that many people who are suddenly stricken with doubt about the official version of 9/11 come to the jref to be reassured. Nobody wants to believe that 9/11 was an inside job and if the jref can offer a half-reasonable explanation then many people are more than happy to accept it. I hope to keep those people thinking.

"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia, it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid seeing ugly realities they’d sooner not believe.”

[Thunder]

Nobody wants to believe that 9/1 was an inside job.

wrong!!!!!

most Truthers desperately hate the USA and its allies, and will leave no stone unturned to blame the USA for all the world's ills.

so yes, many if not most Truthers, do indeed WANT to believe that 9-11 was done by elements of the American govt.

[tuc0]

Nobody wants to believe that 9/1 was an inside job ...

No. Lots of people want to believe in an inside job.

"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia, it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid seeing ugly realities they’d sooner not believe.”

This is retarded.

[dafydd]

Well I suppose an outright admission of guilt would be required for me to win the bet. The Russians admitted to starting the war on Finland with a false flag operation so I suppose it could happen here too.

I don't know anything about the methodology of history, but if the conspiracy became universally accepted in the same way as other history is, that would be satisfactoy too.

Why would an insane theory without a shred of proof ever be universally accepted?

[dafydd]

I was all over Prague and Vienna. Two major cities in Europe. I saw not one single 9-11 Truth sticker, grafitti, etc. Oh well.

:)

There is one nutcase in Belgium.
http://www.911belgium.be/forum.html
Note that the forum is closed,largely because nobody ever posted there.

[cantonear1968]

About thirty years ago, I had one of those drunken conversations in the pub with a few friends in which we planned out how, if we'd been doing the Great Train Robbery, we'd have done a much better job of it. By the end of the evening we'd worked out a complete plan for the robbery and the getaway. Next time there's a big robbery, should I expect the police to come knocking on my door?

Dave

Apparently, yes, as we now also have your "pull it" confession!

[cantonear1968]

I believe that many people who are suddenly stricken with doubt about the official version of 9/11 come to the jref to be reassured.

I would say completely the opposite. I think people come here because with 9 years discussion on this subject, and absolutely nothing new coming from the truther side, each and every red herring, misstatement, misquote, misdirection, half-truth and out-and-out deception on the part of the Loose Change Boys and their dogma followers has been answered here with factual, verifiable evidence and put to bed.

[TraneWreck]

So Bush in his capacity as President IS the United States ? So who can he be made to answer to ? The taxpayer ? Evidently not. 'Sovereign Immunity ' is literally a get-out-of-jail-free gold card. He answers to nobody.

The obvious implication is that he COULD have carried out 9/11 AND walked away from it using his get-out-of-jail-free card.

And he did......

Only in America.........

It's as though you didn't even read my post.

[The Platypus]

What does it matter to you that the people in the U.S. vote for someone to be in office, Bill? The U.S. Constitution doesn't state that a president should have authority above his people. The U.S. people make the choice, not the president. Ever heard the "Freedom of Speech", Bill? Don't you know that the first words in the U.S. Constitution says: "We the People...."?

You don't want to learn about the U.S. Constitution, Bill:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Read the hilited section Bill:



How can the President of the U.S. have so little power when it's up to the Senate & Congress to decide things, Bill?

Bill, can you agree that what you Truthers are doing is treasoness? Let me educate you a little bit from the U.S. Constitution on what it says about treason against the U.S. And please read the hilited area.:



You are adhering to our enemies Bill, you know who our enemies are don't you? Ok, let me make it simple for you to understand.

You claim that the U.S. did 9/11 to itself, you claim that the Terrorist are free of the crime. So what does that tell everyone in the world about your political views? You'd rather want bloodshed from the Terrorist rather than freedom, liberty & peace.

I could go on & on about the U.S. Constitution Bill & prove you wrong at every turn. But I'd rather if you make the mistake first by opening your mind about these stupid conspiracy theories.


And this is why i call them 911 traitors.

[Thunder]

9-11 Deniers is better.

[dudalb]

It's all about pretext.

Read a bit of history and you'll soon realize that pretext is an old tactic.

It provides an excuse to pursue a goal that otherwise would be opposed by the majority.

The Reichstag burning was a pretext for Hitler to gain control of the German government and suppress opposition.

9/11 was a pretext for the Bush administration to prosecute war and suppress opposition.

Get the people pumped for war and they'll be eating out of your hands.

MM



You do know that most historians now think that the Reichstag fire was NOT an inside job. The Nazi sure as hell exploitated it,but it just gave them an excuse for something they were going to do anyway.