A Question for Truthers [Archive]

Regnad Kcin

11th July 2007, 02:20 PM

Regnad Kcin

12th July 2007, 11:57 AM

Well, my truther friends?

Pardalis

12th July 2007, 12:42 PM

Reggie, Twoofers like to ask questions, not answer them. :p

CHF

12th July 2007, 12:48 PM

The lack of follow-up attacks is especially odd considering that people like Alex Jones insist that 9/11 was staged and Al Qaeda is a hoax designed to scare us towards a fascist plice state or a "Prison Planet."

Yet the evil minds behind this plot stage one attack on America and milk it for six years while their poll numbers crash through the floor???

Sliding America (or any other country) into a police state would be easy for people willing and able to stage attacks. All you'd have to do is make the population feel under assault at all times so that they'll look to the government for protection. Introduce them to terror with 9/11 and then follow it up with car bombs, shootings, sabotage etc.

Yet all the NWO does is issue terror alerts that most people ignore...

Newtons Bit

12th July 2007, 12:52 PM

Why haven't there been anymore attacks? The Islamist Special Forces have been keeping us safe, duh.

TruthSeeker1234

12th July 2007, 12:53 PM

The Demon's Head

12th July 2007, 12:59 PM

Rewards? The Patriot Act is rather weak. Iraq is a mess and is pretty much a lost war because it is not being won. The citizens are pretty much fed up with the US politicians BS.

It is amazing to me that the majority of truthers believe that idiot Bush orchestrated 9/11.

Pardalis

12th July 2007, 01:01 PM

There have been some more false flag terror psyops.

2004 Madrid
2005 London
2006 Liquid bomber

You wouldn't have any proof of that?

Devil's Advocate

12th July 2007, 01:15 PM

twinstead

12th July 2007, 01:22 PM

There have been some more false flag terror psyops.

2004 Madrid
2005 London
2006 Liquid bomber

LOL that's kind of not fair if you can declare any event you want a 'false flag' with no evidence at all. Is that some kind of woo woo circuit breaker?

Hell, I know people who think hurricanes and tsunamis are also caused by the US government.

Regnad Kcin

12th July 2007, 01:23 PM

There have been some more false flag terror psyops.

2004 Madrid
2005 London
2006 Liquid bomber

For the most part, they're still busy reaping the rewards of 9/11 - Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, Airport takeover, DHS, etc.Which doesn't answer my question, does it? (Actually it does, but not in the way you intended.)

"False flag terror psyops." Tom Clancy you ain't.

Pardalis

12th July 2007, 01:30 PM

nevermind

CHF

12th July 2007, 01:51 PM

There have been some more false flag terror psyops.

2004 Madrid
2005 London
2006 Liquid bomber

So what exactly was gained from these "false flag" ops?

2004 Madrid: resulted in pro-Bush government being ousted in elections and the withdrawl of Spanish troops from Iraq. Brilliant move by Bush!

2005 London: did nothing other than show how the Iraq war was not stopping terror by "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here."

2006 Liquid bomber: fear largely died down after a few weeks.

Tell me, TS: if you were intent on creating a police state via a false flag terror campaign, how would you do it?

Juustin

12th July 2007, 02:18 PM

You guys are forgetting some stuff (if we're in "Truther" mode):

-Katrina
-VA Tech
-Amish school shootings

Also, the "Bush is an idiot and you think he pulled off the greatest conspiracy ever" defense is no match for their "Haven't you ever seen 'The Usual Suspects'?" response.

PhantomWolf

12th July 2007, 04:50 PM

My favourite CT idea is that the insurgents in Iraq are actually US controlled. Work that one out. Bush and his cronies are supposedly controlling the guys that are causing so much trouble that Bushies' opinion rates have down down the sewer and are out to sea somewhere and have caused all and sundry, including his own supporters to start calling for retreat. How the heck does that work? Yeah let's make ourselves look like a bunch of incompetent idiots who shouldn't be in charge of a paper bag and have the entire population of the US hate us for......... um what?

pomeroo

12th July 2007, 05:08 PM

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2762204]There have been some more false flag terror psyops.

2004 Madrid
2005 London
2006 Liquid bomber

Um, Ace, you're lying as usual. These events were real. Reality is a terrifying concept for you, but that doesn't change anything.

For the most part, they're still busy reaping the rewards of 9/11 - Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, Airport takeover, DHS, etc.

Newsflash: there were no "rewards." None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

You are reflexively babbling paranoid nonsense. Bush leaves office in January 2009. Please explain why he is thrilled to leave his carefully-constructed fascist state to Hillary Clinton.

Creative thought: See if you can prove, with your renowned expertise at video legerdemain, that Bush and Hillary are the same person.

Hey, how are you making out with real reporters? As well as Lyte Trip? Keep punching--fame and fortune are just around the corner.

mjd1982

12th July 2007, 05:35 PM

[QUOTE]
Newsflash: there were no "rewards." None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Read:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

ktesibios

12th July 2007, 06:18 PM

So what exactly was gained from these "false flag" ops?

2004 Madrid: resulted in pro-Bush government being ousted in elections and the withdrawl of Spanish troops from Iraq. Brilliant move by Bush!

It might be worth noting that this outcome was contingent on the Spanish government's insistence on placing the blame on the Basque separatist organization ETA, even in the face of evidence that the perpetrators were radical islamists.

So this is not only a case of the NWO shooting itself in the foot, but of doing it by adopting an attitude just like a bunch of troofers. ;)

PhantomWolf

12th July 2007, 07:24 PM

Read:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

:dl:

I especially liked the big about the Bush administration blocking any moves by the Dems to introduce renewables over oil based energy... Oh, that's right, Bush announced how he wanted to push the US into a position of using 25% renewables by 2010... yup they sure got that right...

:bunpan

TruthSeeker1234

12th July 2007, 07:41 PM

So what exactly was gained from these "false flag" ops?

(Trillions in wealth was gained. Open your eyes. 9/11 is the excuse for everything. It is still mentioned on TV news, almost every night.)

2004 Madrid: resulted in pro-Bush government being ousted in elections and the withdrawl of Spanish troops from Iraq. Brilliant move by Bush!

(Anti-Bush sentiment plays into the plan as well - next up - Socialized Healthcare! Brought to you by Gore, or Clinton, or McCain, or Giuliani, it doesn't matter)

2005 London: did nothing other than show how the Iraq war was not stopping terror by "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here."

(LOL. Did you really fall for the one about the global war on terror? Silly. It's about building military bases, taking over the oil, and milking the taxpayers.)

2006 Liquid bomber: fear largely died down after a few weeks.

(I was never afraid. Then again, I'm physically incapable of experiencing fear. You still can't bring liquids onto a plane, silly. Could've just been a ploy to increase in-flight beverage sales. LOL.)

Tell me, TS: if you were intent on creating a police state via a false flag terror campaign, how would you do it?

Pretty much just like they're doing it. Bush and Cheney get the blame for 9/11 and the war, they will leave office hated, the next crew of "spokesmodels" will be in, and they'll get to work on finishing the healthcare takeover, and dreaming up clever excuses for why more regulation will fix "global warming". (While continuing to build military bases, take over the oil, and continuing to milk the productive, peaceful citizens via taxation and inflation).

Alareth

12th July 2007, 07:47 PM

Remember folks, everyone on the planet is part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. EVERYONE.

Except Ace of course.

Pardalis

12th July 2007, 07:49 PM

I'm feeling dizzy.

CHF

12th July 2007, 07:56 PM

Yes, TS the 9/11 plot has worked really well for Bush hasn't it?

Lowest approval ratings, the neo-con revolution in flames. Only a twoofer would see that as a victory.

Pretty much just like they're doing it.

Which is why you wouldn't have created your own fascist police state either.

DGM

12th July 2007, 08:02 PM

Pretty much just like they're doing it. Bush and Cheney get the blame for 9/11 and the war, they will leave office hated,

That kind of suggest that Alex Jones and the truth movement is trying to start this. It would make sense the way they ban people for speaking against them. I can see it now "truthersforpolicestate.com"

Pardalis

12th July 2007, 08:05 PM

Yes, TS the 9/11 plot has worked really well for Bush hasn't it?

Lowest approval ratings, the neo-con revolution in flames. Only a twoofer would see that as a victory.

Which is why you wouldn't have created your own fascist police state either.

Can't you see? The dissent and disatisfaction is part of the plan!

Open your eyes man! :boggled:

TruthSeeker1234

12th July 2007, 08:17 PM

[quote]

Um, Ace, you're lying as usual. These events were real. Reality is a terrifying concept for you, but that doesn't change anything.

Newsflash: there were no "rewards." None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

You are reflexively babbling paranoid nonsense. Bush leaves office in January 2009. Please explain why he is thrilled to leave his carefully-constructed fascist state to Hillary Clinton.

Creative thought: See if you can prove, with your renowned expertise at video legerdemain, that Bush and Hillary are the same person.

Hey, how are you making out with real reporters? As well as Lyte Trip? Keep punching--fame and fortune are just around the corner.

The media perps have thusfar refused to release any broadcast quality videos. No word from your buddy at Fox5. Why wouldn't they want to release them, so as to debunk claims of video fakery?

Undesired Walrus

12th July 2007, 08:25 PM

There have been some more false flag terror psyops.

2005 London
.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

DGM

12th July 2007, 08:31 PM

MG1962

12th July 2007, 08:43 PM

There have been some more false flag terror psyops.

2004 Madrid
2005 London
2006 Liquid bomber

For the most part, they're still busy reaping the rewards of 9/11 - Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, Airport takeover, DHS, etc.

Okay so the 2002 Bali bombing wasnt a false flag, therefore it must mean Al Quida exists, therefore they must have planned 911 therefore all the other false flag operations are real terror attacks as well

QED - you cease to exist

Hey this circle logic is fun once you get the hang of it

Alareth

12th July 2007, 08:57 PM

The media perps have thusfar refused to release any broadcast quality videos. No word from your buddy at Fox5. Why wouldn't they want to release them, so as to debunk claims of video fakery?

Possibly because your claims video fakery are palpably absurd so why would they need to debunk them?

Even within the "Truth" movement those that share your beliefs are being marginalized and openly ridiculed. You and your kind are a delusional footnote attached to a sick joke.

Tell me Ace, when arguably crazy people tell you that you are crazy, might that be something worth considering?

I suspect those that take the time to argue with you here simply do so because they have nothing better to do at the time. People do silly things when they are bored.

CHF

12th July 2007, 08:58 PM

TS,

did the CIA/NWO pull off Beslan and the Indian train bombings as well?

Or do you think that pissed off Muslims actually exist?

pomeroo

12th July 2007, 09:07 PM

[quote=pomeroo;2763013]

Read:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

Okay, I read it. It's very stupid.

pomeroo

12th July 2007, 09:12 PM

[quote=pomeroo;2763013]

The media perps have thusfar refused to release any broadcast quality videos. No word from your buddy at Fox5. Why wouldn't they want to release them, so as to debunk claims of video fakery?

No, Ace, you're lying as usual. There are no "media perps." None. Zero. Not one person in the media had anything to do with the jihadist attacks of 9/11.

You're lying about my "buddy" at Fox 5. I don't know anyone at Fox 5. The people I spoke with seemed annoyed that I would waste their time with such nonsense.

They seem to have no interest in scratching the itches of agenda-driven crackpots who are impervious to reason and evidence.

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 09:15 PM

TruthSeeker1234

12th July 2007, 09:19 PM

I see what you guys are laboring about. Look, the "administration" is a temporary set of figureheads, spokes-models if you will. Like a news anchorman. The president wields real power, to be sure, the same way Katie Couric or Brian Williams wield real power at the network. Powerful though they may be, they don't run the company.

If you want to begin to unravel this enigma, contemplate the permanent government, and the interest groups that are wedded to it. The military, the alphabet agencies, the defense contractors, the news media, and of course, the Federal Reserve. This "military-industrial-media-banking complex" is ongoing, and will not change when the new "administration" is inaugurated January of 2009.

pomeroo

12th July 2007, 09:22 PM

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2763423](Trillions in wealth was gained. Open your eyes. 9/11 is the excuse for everything. It is still mentioned on TV news, almost every night.)

You're lying again, Ace. We don't believe that wealth was created out of destruction. It's a basic economic fallacy.

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2763423]
(Anti-Bush sentiment plays into the plan as well - next up - Socialized Healthcare! Brought to you by Gore, or Clinton, or McCain, or Giuliani, it doesn't matter)

So, the people who are opposed to socialized health care are identical to the people who favor it?

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2763423]
(LOL. Did you really fall for the one about the global war on terror? Silly. It's about building military bases, taking over the oil, and milking the taxpayers.)

Makes you wonder why they're not building bases or taking over any oil.

(I was never afraid. Then again, I'm physically incapable of experiencing fear. You still can't bring liquids onto a plane, silly. Could've just been a ploy to increase in-flight beverage sales. LOL.)

Yeah, you're "physically incapable of experiencing fear." Sure, Ace. You're also the greatest scientific mind of the last five hundred years.

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2763423]
Pretty much just like they're doing it. Bush and Cheney get the blame for 9/11 and the war, they will leave office hated, the next crew of "spokesmodels" will be in, and they'll get to work on finishing the healthcare takeover, and dreaming up clever excuses for why more regulation will fix "global warming". (While continuing to build military bases, take over the oil, and continuing to milk the productive, peaceful citizens via taxation and inflation).

The neocons and the people who hate them are all neocons! A unique insight, Ace. Oh, I forgot: there are only statists and anarchists.

The Demon's Head

12th July 2007, 09:26 PM

The question is equally relevant for the OT supporters. Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?

The hate our freedoms is PR BS.

Pardalis

12th July 2007, 09:32 PM

The question is equally relevant for the OT supporters. Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?

10 foiled attacks since 9/11 (http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html).

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 09:37 PM

10 foiled attacks since 9/11 (http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html).

Wow, 10 false flag attacks went wrong.

MIKILLINI

12th July 2007, 09:41 PM

The question is equally relevant for the OT supporters. Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?

Since our troops are over there, they are much closer to the Jihadists. This was Al-Queda's design to how the US would react to 9/11. They are fighting a guerilla war designed to wear down a superior military, unless the superior military can adjust and adapt rapidly. Vietnam was a case in point as to how this strategy works.

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 09:43 PM

The Demon's Head

12th July 2007, 09:45 PM

Since our troops are over there, they are much closer to the Jihadists. This was Al-Queda's design to how the US would react to 9/11. They are fighting a guerilla war designed to wear down a superior military, unless the superior military can adjust and adapt rapidly. Vietnam was a case in point as to how this strategy works.

Not entirely true, al-Qaeda views America as somewhat of a weakling. Al-Qaeda didn't truly think America would send its armed forces after them.

However, your partly right about how al-Qaeda wishes to wear down America's armed forces, and al-Qaeda also wishes to bankrupt the U.S. which is what the Iraq war alone seems to be doing.

Pardalis

12th July 2007, 09:45 PM

Wow, 10 false flag attacks went wrong.

Are all of these false flag attacks?:

foiled terror attacks since 2001:

Probably the biggest one, a plot to simultaneously blow up 10 planes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081000152.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html)

10 plots in the US: http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US...ots/index.html (http://cnn.websites-blog.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html)

G8 terror attack foiled: http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/ar...076285,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2076285,00.html)

In Singapore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot)

intelligence about dirty bomb and nuclear threats: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...947295,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1947295,00.html)

plot foiled in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_German_train_bombing

Busted terror cells in Canada:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...d5d6cc&k=46849 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849)
http://www.canada.com/national/natio...a-3c8f6009581c (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aa8696a1-5a53-40ca-868a-3c8f6009581c)

Just to give you a sample. I’m sure there are many more of these in many other countries.

plots that unfortunately did work since 2001:

In England:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_...ondon_bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings)

In Singapore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapo...es_attack_plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot)

In Spain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Marc...Madrid_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_attacks)

In Indonesia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombing

In Jordan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Amman_bombings

In Tunisia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghriba_Synagogue_Attack

In the Philipines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizal_Day_Bombings

In Morocco:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3035803.stm

In Gibraltar:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...ing/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/05/uk.terror.shipping/index.html)

In Kenya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyan_hotel_bombing

In Saudi Arabia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Compound_Bombings

In Istambul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Istanbul_bombings

In Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sh...Sheikh_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sharm_el-Sheikh_attacks)

In Algeria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Algiers_bombings

oil tanker bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburg_tanker_bombing

PhantomWolf

12th July 2007, 09:50 PM

MIKILLINI

12th July 2007, 10:00 PM

Some people are so gullible. Read "The Grand Chessboard", written in 1997.

Zbigniew Brezezinski's Book? Many woo attach themselves to this book as the NWO, a blueprint for 9/11 being an inside job.

Regnad Kcin

12th July 2007, 10:44 PM

The question is equally relevant for the OT supporters. Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?No, the question as presented in the OP is in no way "equally relevant" to the conventional wisdom re: 9/11.

Now, rather than answering with a question, would you care to answer with an answer?

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 10:48 PM

No, the question as presented in the OP is in no way "equally relevant" to the conventional wisdom re: 9/11.

Now, rather than answering with a question, would you care to answer with an answer?

911 served it's purpose, why risk more attacks. as Kieth Olberman pointed out, the Bush Admin are using warnings and supposed foiled attacks at key times to keep their little cabal running smoothly.

Now answer my question.

pomeroo

12th July 2007, 10:49 PM

[quote=Revolutionary91;2763756]Some people are so gullible. Read "The Grand Chessboard", written in 1997.

Yeah, kid, you really ought to try reading what Brzezinski wrote, not what some illiterate conspiracy liar pretends he wrote. You'll notice rather quickly that he doesn't buy the silly rubbish you've been spouting.

CHF

12th July 2007, 10:50 PM

Wow, 10 false flag attacks went wrong.

How can it be that the government foiling its own false flag attacks means they "went wrong?"

Think, son!

the Bush Admin are using warnings and supposed foiled attacks at key times to keep their little cabal running smoothly.

So in Twooferworld things are "running smoothly" for the Bush Admin.

What colour is the sky in your world?

pomeroo

12th July 2007, 10:53 PM

[quote=Revolutionary91;2763868]911 served it's purpose, why risk more attacks. as Kieth Olberman pointed out, the Bush Admin are using warnings and supposed foiled attacks at key times to keep their little cabal running smoothly.

Tell us how smoothly the cabal is running. What aims have been realized? Explain how the crushing defeat in the 2006 elections helped advance the scheme. Best of all, explain why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy didn't announce Osama's (remember, he isn't real) death in time to stave off the disaster at the polls.

[quote=Revolutionary91;2763868]
Now answer my question.

You ask dumb questions.

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 10:58 PM

[quote]

Tell us how smoothly the cabal is running. What aims have been realized? Explain how the crushing defeat in the 2006 elections helped advance the scheme. Best of all, explain why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy didn't announce Osama's (remember, he isn't real) death in time to stave off the disaster at the polls.

[quote]

You ask dumb questions.

Fine, if i'm that dumb you won't mind if I don't bother replying. I'll just put you on ignore.

Corsair 115

12th July 2007, 11:07 PM

The media perps have thusfar refused to release any broadcast quality videos. Has it even occurred to you to try making requests to news stations outside the United States? You know, these places had their own airings of video recordings of the events of that day. They just might have some copies of their newsbroadcasts from that day archived.

Unless, of course, you intend to assert that the media from other nations are also in on the conspiracy.

Anti-Bush sentiment plays into the plan as well - next up - Socialized Healthcare! And how exactly is that a bad thing? Most of the developed nations in the western world have socialized health care systems of one kind or another. And I'm quite sure most of the folks living in those countries consider that to be a good thing.

...While continuing to build military bases, take over the oil...Take whose oil? It certainly can't be Iraq's because the U.S. got more oil from that country back in 2001 than it did in 2006. Seems a pretty useless takeover if the oil isn't actually, well, taken over and sent to the U.S.

Besides, it's much easier and simpler to ask Canada to continue its expansion and development of the Alberta tar sands. We're happy to oblige and more than happy to sell you the petroleum we produce. In fact, we're your #1 supplier, and have been for a couple of years.

The question is equally relevant for the OT supporters. Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?Let's see, some eight years elapsed between the first WTC bombing in 1993 and the attacks of 2001. Large scale attacks take a lot of time to plan and organize, plus there is the logistical difficulty of getting sufficient numbers of perpetrators to the U.S. Thousands of miles of ocean on each coast means air travel is the easiest way to get to the U.S., but that method of transportation is being scrutinized much more so now than prior to 9/11.

It is actually well and good that Al-Qaeda has a preference for large, dramatic, set-piece type of attacks that take a long time to pull off. Because if those weren't their obsession, they could be causing a huge amount of fear and consuming a huge amount of law enforcement resources by attacking the U.S. in much more simple ways.

Remember folks, everyone on the planet is part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.Shouldn't we abbreviate that to IVC? After all, there's MIHOP and LIHOP and a host of other short forms being used, so IVC seems a natural fit in that regard.

CHF

12th July 2007, 11:08 PM

Revolutionary91,

How can it be that the government foiling its own false flag attacks means they "went wrong?"

Reality Believer

12th July 2007, 11:09 PM

I would swear that some of these truther types live in some kind of parallel universe. The one where Spock has a goatee.

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 11:11 PM

[quote]
[quote=Revolutionary91;2763891][quote=pomeroo;2763881]

[quote]

You are extremely dumb and an arrogant little know-nothing to boot. There wasn't the slightest chance you would try to cope with my questions.

Thanks. You know where the ignore button is.

I remember you on LC, claiming that Bush didn't lie about WMD. If you ever return to reality drop me a PM. Tata for now.

~enigma~

12th July 2007, 11:17 PM

enigma,
Smile when you say my name damnit!

BillyRayValentine

12th July 2007, 11:30 PM

The question is equally relevant for the OT supporters. Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?

Junior, the only thing your irretrievably stupid question proves is that you couldn't grasp the point of the OP.

It's clear that the only reason you ask your snarky little questions is to annoy the grownups. Is that really the best way to spend your summer vacation? Sophomore year can be hell.

MIKILLINI

12th July 2007, 11:31 PM

Revolutionary91,

How can it be that the government foiling its own false flag attacks means they "went wrong?"

Good question, I'm wondering that myself.

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 11:34 PM

Junior, the only thing your irretrievably stupid question proves is that you couldn't grasp the point of the OP.

It's clear that the only reason you ask your snarky little questions is to annoy the grownups. Is that really the best way to spend your summer vacation? Sophomore year can be hell.

I just hope that when im all groweded up i'm not this gullible and stupid. If I am you have my permission to shoot me.

Alareth

12th July 2007, 11:35 PM

Some people are so gullible.

Yes, yes they are.

CHF

12th July 2007, 11:41 PM

OK R91...I take it you can't answer my question. It's a tough one, I know.

Try this one about that new investigation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87106) you guys are always calling for.

I'd love some feedback from a young rank-and-file truther foot soldier like yourself.

Revolutionary91

12th July 2007, 11:57 PM

CHF

12th July 2007, 11:58 PM

I can't be bothered answering your simple naive strawman.

:dl:

Dude, do you even know what a strawman is?

BillyRayValentine

13th July 2007, 12:04 AM

I just hope that when im all groweded up i'm not this gullible and stupid.

Don't fret. The gullible and stupid phase is just a part of growing up, and it's usually temporary. You should be fine once you reach adulthood.

In the meantime, there's a reason why you won't be allowed into the voting booth for a few more years.

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 12:07 AM

:dl:

Dude, do you even know what a strawman is?

Yes I do. You know exactly why its a strawman. Most of your questions are strawmen.

I can't believe the simplistic thinking that you exhibit. "The government foils its own attacks" lol

You do realise that not everybody is in on various conspiracies. Why do you think drills are always run to accompany these false flags?

CHF

13th July 2007, 12:11 AM

You claim the government stages false flag attacks.

You claim that the attacks stopped by the government were ones that "went wrong."

Reconcile those two beliefs.

If the government chose to stop their own attacks then how would that mean they "went wrong?"

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 12:34 AM

CHF

13th July 2007, 12:35 AM

Where did I say the government chose to stop their own attacks?

Well whose plan was it that "went wrong?"

You do realise that not everybody is in on various conspiracies.

Oh I think I see what you're trying to say.

You think that the government planned terror attacks and then didn't include their anti-terror guys in the process who then busted the government's plans. And this happened 10 friggin' times! :eye-poppi

Is that what you're saying?

MortFurd

13th July 2007, 02:03 AM

I would swear that some of these truther types live in some kind of parallel universe. The one where Spock has a goatee.
Nah. Evil Kirk would have had 'em fried for breakfast about five seconds after they started bleating about a conspiracy. That and the bad guys there are competent - you have to be because screwing up means getting toasted.

Oh, and there's this:
Evil Kirk wouldn't bother with the whole CT thing. He'd just do what he was after, then fry you if you objected. Conspiracies there are only to keep the higher ups from finding out what you are doing to take their place. Peons don't count.

MortFurd

13th July 2007, 02:07 AM

Well whose plan was it that "went wrong?"

Oh I think I see what you're trying to say.

You think that the government planned terror attacks and then didn't include their anti-terror guys in the process who then busted the government's plans. And this happened 10 friggin' times! :eye-poppi

Is that what you're saying?
The competently incompetent argument. The dastardly dastards can do ANYTHING - except keep their plans secret or actually carry their plans out.

mjd1982

13th July 2007, 04:20 AM

:dl:

I especially liked the big about the Bush administration blocking any moves by the Dems to introduce renewables over oil based energy... Oh, that's right, Bush announced how he wanted to push the US into a position of using 25% renewables by 2010... yup they sure got that right...

:bunpan
That's a very good, coherent and cogent rebuttal of the article. Well done, intrepid seeker of truth!

mjd1982

13th July 2007, 04:24 AM

[QUOTE]

Okay, I read it. It's very stupid.
Haha, another fantastic rebuttal, how can anyone not think you are after the facts. Well done you!

The Doc

13th July 2007, 05:22 AM

Why do you think drills are always run to accompany these false flags?

I hate to burst your bubble... but military/government drills are run every single day of the year.

JimBenArm

13th July 2007, 05:43 AM

(Trillions in wealth was gained. Open your eyes. 9/11 is the excuse for everything. It is still mentioned on TV news, almost every night.)

Wait a minute. Is this the same TV news that's part of the vast conspiracy? That we're not supposed to believe?

Except for when we're supposed to believe them, evidently.

Is there a color code that I'm missing that tells when they're lying, and when they're telling the truth?

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 05:44 AM

I hate to burst your bubble... but military/government drills are run every single day of the year.

Can you back that up?

Does it not concern you that the drills seem to mirror the real attacks? Why did condoleeza Rice say that nobody had envisioned airplanes flying into buildings when thats exactly what drills had practised?

DGM

13th July 2007, 05:50 AM

Rice say that nobody had envisioned airplanes flying into buildings when thats exactly what drills had practised?

Care to show me when the US military practiced flying planes into buildings?

MG1962

13th July 2007, 05:57 AM

Does it not concern you that the drills seem to mirror the real attacks? Why did condoleeza Rice say that nobody had envisioned airplanes flying into buildings when thats exactly what drills had practised?

Ummm - so what do you propose - Doing drills against eruptions of Mushroom men from inner earth seeking our women?

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 06:12 AM

Ummm - so what do you propose - Doing drills against eruptions of Mushroom men from inner earth seeking our women?

Ok, I see, the Visor drills on 7/7 were just a coincidence. I'll go back to sleep now.

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 06:15 AM

Care to show me when the US military practiced flying planes into buildings?

They didn't. They practised for it:

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

The Doc

13th July 2007, 06:19 AM

Can you back that up?

Start reading.
http://www.norad.mil/News/2007/index.html

The following are only from NORAD over a 2-3 month period and does not include other Air Force, Navy, Army or Coast Guard drills. If NORAD conducts classified drills, I assume that they are not included either. Please see the above link for drills pre-dating 2007.

http://www.norad.mil/News/2007/062207.html
Ex Amalgam Dart took place at 19 Wing Comox in British Columbia between June 14 and 18.

http://www.norad.mil/News/2007/050707.html
May 7, 2007
ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska — Joint Task Force-Alaska and the State of Alaska are among several federal, state, local government and private sector agencies that are participating in exercise Alaska Shield/Northern Edge 2007 beginning Monday and continuing through May 18.
http://www.norad.mil/News/2007/022207.html
PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. — About once every month, North American Aerospace Defense Command personnel hone their crisis response skills in a training exercise called Amalgam Arrow.
http://www.norad.mil/News/2007/041807.html
PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. – The North American Aerospace Defense Command and its geographical component, the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR), will conduct Exercise Falcon Virgo 07-07 late Wednesday night through early Thursday morning in the National Capital Region (Washington, D.C.).
http://www.norad.mil/News/2007/062207_a.html
The North American Aerospace Defense Command and its geographical component, the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR), will conduct Exercise Falcon Virgo 07-09 Monday through Friday in the National Capital Region (Washington, D.C.).

http://www.norad.mil/News/2007/032807.html
March 28, 2007
ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska – The Canadian and Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Command regions launched a combined team of fighters, tankers and AWACS command and control aircraft this week to practice intercepting unidentified aircraft.
There's a few recent exercises that were conducted by NORAD. That doesn't include other departments of the military and the government.

What do you think the armed forces are doing all year, sitting on their butts doing nothing? No. They train by conducting drills and exercises.

DGM

13th July 2007, 06:24 AM

They didn't. They practised for it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
Did you bother to read the article that you posted, or did you just pick out the parts that fit?

JimBenArm

13th July 2007, 06:25 AM

Start reading.
http://www.norad.mil/News/2007/index.html

The following are only from NORAD over a 2-3 month period and does not include other Air Force, Navy, Army or Coast Guard drills. If NORAD conducts classified drills, I assume that they are not included either. Please see the above link for drills pre-dating 2007.

There's a few recent exercises that were conducted by NORAD. That doesn't include other departments of the military and the government.

What do you think the armed forces are doing all year, sitting on their butts doing nothing? No. They train by conducting drills and exercises.
All we ever did on the subs was sit around the reactor getting a tan, drinking pina coladas from glasses with umbrellas.
Drills? That's for the NWO nubes!

westprog

13th July 2007, 06:25 AM

The question is equally relevant for the OT supporters. Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?

There's a fairly obvious reason forthat. It's the same reason why you never saw a Kamikaze with a row of little ships painted under his cockpit.

When you use up all your people in one attack, it's disruptive to the organisation. That's why it's a good idea to make it a huge event, if your US operation has to be rebuilt from the ground up in the face of increased vigilance.

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 06:25 AM

So you cant back up your claim thyat they occur every day.

Will you address the point of the Visor drills being so similar to the 7/7 events?

Alferd_Packer

13th July 2007, 06:26 AM

Can you back that up?

You can't be serious?

CHF

13th July 2007, 06:39 AM

R91,

You think that the government planned terror attacks and then didn't include their anti-terror guys in the process who then busted the government's plans. And this happened 10 friggin' times! :eye-poppi

Is that what you're saying?

The Doc

13th July 2007, 06:43 AM

So you cant back up your claim thyat they occur every day.

Now you're just being pathetic. I provided you links showing that NORAD, which is run by one division, of one section of the armed forces, conducted exercises for roughly 44 days out of 83 (rough calculations, based on the Amalgam Arrow exercise occuring once a month) between March 28 and June 18.

If you factor in other divisions of the US Air Force (not just the Cheyenne Mountain exercises) such as the US Navy, the US Marines, the US Army, the US coast guard and other government departments, I guarantee you would find an exercise occuring every day over the continental United States. If you knew anything about the military, you would know that when they aren't fighting, they are training.

Will you address the point of the Visor drills being so similar to the 7/7 events?No. It's just another shining example of a conspiracist trying to change the subject instead of admitting they are wrong.

Example:
CT: "WTC1 and WTC2 were white elephants!"
D: "No... they were around 98% full on 9/11"
CT: "What about WTC7, it collapsed in 6.5 seconds, will you address that point?"

Stay on topic.

DGM

13th July 2007, 06:44 AM

So you cant back up your claim thyat they occur every day.

Will you address the point of the Visor drills being so similar to the 7/7 events?

What do you think the military does when it's not fighting wars?

Is a subway bombing hard for you to envision?

Obviousman

13th July 2007, 06:49 AM

I thought it would have been obvious by now.

"truthers" are not interested in answers, only asking questions.

Lurker

13th July 2007, 06:53 AM

To quote my own sig. It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.

Maybe we should reterm Twoofer, Ostriches. They just want to keep their heads stuck in the sand hiding from the real world by inventing the terrible all powerful (unless they decide not to be all powerful, NWO.) The idea that there are real nutter religious types who really want to convert or kill them is obviously a nightmare they can't handle and so slip off into the boogyman world of their own delusions. I wish I'd become a psychologist, there is litterally years worth of papers I could write on the mental state of these guys.

Subconsciously, they prefer a world with a very powerful govt to one where small terrorist organizations can wreak such destruction on our society. While they rail against the govt, they secretly wish it were as powerful as their delusions make it. It allows them to sleep safer at night thinking this way.

Lurker

Alferd_Packer

13th July 2007, 07:21 AM

If you knew anything about the military, you would know that when they aren't fighting, they are training.

And when they are doing either, they are standing around, smoking cigarettes.

Juustin

13th July 2007, 07:38 AM

(Anti-Bush sentiment plays into the plan as well - next up - Socialized Healthcare! Brought to you by Gore, or Clinton, or McCain, or Giuliani, it doesn't matter)

So they faked a tragedy to gain support for a war to advance their evil capitalist agenda, so they could eventually introduce socialized healthcare? That's genius.

Juustin

13th July 2007, 07:46 AM

You do realise that not everybody is in on various conspiracies. Why do you think drills are always run to accompany these false flags?

So the top leaders of government have the ability to mastermind giant conspiracies like 9/11, but can't simply figure out a way to get lower government officials out of the way? Aren't these the same masterminds who you believe (depending on which version you're using) wired explosives into buildings that had 50,000 occupants with no one noticing, made sure every "passenger" and "terrorist" on all the planes were never accounted for or came forward, used CGI to have planes hitting the buildings on TV, and see to it that every one of thousands of eye witnesses changed their story to say they saw planes? Where's that political muscle in all the foiled attacks?

Pardalis

13th July 2007, 08:57 AM

Revolutionary91, do you think WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition for humanitarian causes?

Regnad Kcin

13th July 2007, 10:47 AM

911 served it's purpose, why risk more attacks. as Kieth Olberman pointed out, the Bush Admin are using warnings and supposed foiled attacks at key times to keep their little cabal running smoothly.Senate and House defeat at the 2006 midterms, the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, near record low approval ratings for Mr. Bush... Why, it's all just going swimmingly!

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 11:26 AM

Revolutionary91, do you think WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition for humanitarian causes?

I dount it. I don't think it just collapsed though.

CHF

13th July 2007, 11:28 AM

I dount it. I don't think it just collapsed though.

Why did the FDNY report that it would collapse several hours before it did?

Pardalis

13th July 2007, 11:44 AM

I dount it. I don't think it just collapsed though.

Okey-dokey. Just checking.

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 11:45 AM

Why did the FDNY report that it would collapse several hours before it did?

Did they report it would collapse completely, in seconds?

Regnad Kcin

13th July 2007, 11:52 AM

Now answer my question.Fine. Here it is again:Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?I don't know.

JimBenArm

13th July 2007, 11:55 AM

Did they report it would collapse completely, in seconds?
Why would they think anything else? That the collapse would take a fortnight? Only 72% would collapse?
Just what are you getting at?

Regnad Kcin

13th July 2007, 11:59 AM

Friends, I don't mind a bit of derailing, but I'd like to not stray too far from the question posed in the OP.

Again, Truthers, you seem convinced the U.S. attacked itself (even though it would be the most convoluted and needlessly complex method, involving countless hundreds, if not thousands, of people -- all of whose silence on the matter would have to be ensured forever). Why nothing else? Why no suitcase bombs, or car bombs, or exploding airplanes? Why no kidnappings and beheadings? Why not any simple little (yet destructive) follow-up, never mind another vast scheme on the order of 9/11?

Hmm?

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 12:10 PM

Fine. Here it is again:I don't know.

Thank you for those deep, thought provoking and detailed insights.

Pardalis

13th July 2007, 12:15 PM

Friends, I don't mind a bit of derailing, but I'd like to not stray too far from the question posed in the OP.

That would be my fault. Sorry about that. :o

Back to Regnad's question, truthers.

BillyRayValentine

13th July 2007, 12:25 PM

Does it not concern you that the drills seem to mirror the real attacks?

Ah, kids today...not much of a premium on comprehension skills, apparently.

"The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country. Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries."

Get that, Junior? It's not incredibly bright to say a drill on intercepting foreign-based aircraft mirrored the real attacks.

Why did condoleeza Rice say that nobody had envisioned airplanes flying into buildings when thats exactly what drills had practised?

What you fail to grasp is that those drills, and all such drills, have to do with intercepting rogue aircraft. The intent of the rogue aircraft is irrelevant as far as the drill is concerned. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Go out and play. You seem to be developing an unhealthy obsession with these boards.

Do you ever sleep?

JimBenArm

13th July 2007, 12:26 PM

Thank you for those deep, thought provoking and detailed insights.
Is there something wrong with admitting you don't know the answer to something?

CHF

13th July 2007, 12:34 PM

Did they report it would collapse completely, in seconds?

They said it would collapse but didn't get into specifics of time.

Why would they?

Revolutionary91

13th July 2007, 12:34 PM

Ah, kids today...not much of a premium on comprehension skills, apparently.

"The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country. Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries."

Get that, Junior? It's not incredibly bright to say a drill on intercepting foreign-based aircraft mirrored the real attacks.

What you fail to grasp is that those drills, and all such drills, have to do with intercepting rogue aircraft. The intent of the rogue aircraft is irrelevant as far as the drill is concerned. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Go out and play. You seem to be developing an unhealthy obsession with these boards.

Do you ever sleep?

That's all you can do, exploit my age? I think I will stick around these boards if you don't mind. I won't be reading your posts anymore though, Senior.

JimBenArm

13th July 2007, 12:44 PM

That's all you can do, exploit my age? I think I will stick around these boards if you don't mind. I won't be reading your posts anymore though, Senior.
Well, I am glad you're staying. But do you think you could attempt to answer some of the questions I've asked you? If it's not too much trouble?

BillyRayValentine

13th July 2007, 12:48 PM

That's all you can do, exploit my age? I think I will stick around these boards if you don't mind. I won't be reading your posts anymore though, Senior.

I'm "exploiting" your age? Don't really know what that means, sorry. But if you didn't make such preposterous claims, your age would be irrelevant. But since you do, it's easiest - and best for you, really - to write it off to your immaturity. After pointing out your gross errors, of course, the substance of which you never address.

If everyone behaved like they did at age 15, the world would be an intolerable place. The good news, as I told you before, is that you'll likely outgrow it. In the meantime, seriously...GO-OUT-AND-PLAY!

P.S. I'm not saying you should leave the boards forever. It's just that judging from your constant stream of posts, you do little else. That's unhealthy.

Listen, on a certain level it's good that you're trying to engage your mind and think. You just need to get better at it - and not neglect everything else in your life while you do.

Regnad Kcin

13th July 2007, 01:10 PM

Thank you for those deep, thought provoking and detailed insights.Ouch! Boy, you really scorched me! Mommy, it hurts!

Your question was, frankly, a side-step to the question I posed at the top of this thread. It seems reasonable, but is a dodge. We don't know why the jihadists haven't as yet followed-up to 9/11 with an another attack on U.S. soil because one cannot know.* They could be planning, training, establishing identities, scouting targets, securing materials, or even lying low. They are not an army, but a group of individuals spread out over the world, seeking ways to incite, wait for it, mass terror. So, I could speculate all the live-long day, but it would be just that: speculation.

Your question seems to suggest some nefarious reason for the absence of a follow-up. That's clear-cut fallacious reasoning.

*This also assumes that an attack (or attacks) hasn't been thwarted, making your question ever more beside the point.

Belz...

13th July 2007, 01:11 PM

Wow, 10 false flag attacks went wrong.

So, no matter what actual attacks we can point to, you'll just hand-wave them as being false-flags ?? Do you have any way of knowing if they are false or not ?

Belz...

13th July 2007, 01:13 PM

There have been some more false flag terror psyops.

2004 Madrid
2005 London
2006 Liquid bomber

And they were false flags because ?

(Trillions in wealth was gained. Open your eyes. 9/11 is the excuse for everything. It is still mentioned on TV news, almost every night.)

Yeah. Excuse for SPENDING, not PROFIT.

Then again, I'm physically incapable of experiencing fear.

In that case, might I suggest the nearest psychiatric hospital ?

If you want to begin to unravel this enigma, contemplate the permanent government, and the interest groups that are wedded to it. The military, the alphabet agencies, the defense contractors, the news media, and of course, the Federal Reserve. This "military-industrial-media-banking complex" is ongoing, and will not change when the new "administration" is inaugurated January of 2009.

Yeah, sure. Do you have anything besides your word on this ?

Belz...

13th July 2007, 01:16 PM

I just hope that when im all groweded up i'm not this gullible and stupid.

So you're not a grown up ?

MIKILLINI

13th July 2007, 03:42 PM

They said it would collapse but didn't get into specifics of time.

Why would they?

Because that would mean....prior knowledge, inside job. But why go to that length, when all that was needed (in just a logical sense) was to LIHOP. Everything else would be a higher risk of getting caught, and, logicly, unnecessary. Planes flying into buildings was disturbing enough.

ETA; Didn't mean to take away the question CHF. So Rev, why would they?

MIKILLINI

13th July 2007, 03:58 PM

Senate and House defeat at the 2006 midterms, the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, near record low approval ratings for Mr. Bush... Why, it's all just going swimmingly!

We must not forget Paul Wolfowitz's resignation from the world bank.

pomeroo

13th July 2007, 07:04 PM

[quote=pomeroo;2763903][quote]
[quote=Revolutionary91;2763891][quote=pomeroo;2763881]

Thanks. You know where the ignore button is.

I remember you on LC, claiming that Bush didn't lie about WMD. If you ever return to reality drop me a PM. Tata for now.

Learn to use the quote button.

I have stated on many forums and in several published articles that it is impossible to make the case that Bush "lied" about Iraqi WMD. Offer any arguments you wish in opposition to Bush's policies, from reasoned dissent to hysterical slander, and you will never persuade anyone sane that Bush deliberately engineered the collapse of his own approval ratings. The left's Big Lie is astonishingly stupid, and brazen in its contempt for the intelligence of everyone else. It is nothing short of amazing that otherwise-rational people can parrot such manifest idiocy without considering the implications. The evildoers turned a sure landslide win into a near-disaster, got their scalps shredded 24/7, and all the while they were twirling their mustaches and cackling that the plan was working?!?! Please. Just. Stop.

Tbone

13th July 2007, 11:05 PM

Learn to use the quote button.

I'm sorry... but irony! :D

Travis

14th July 2007, 12:45 AM

Did they report it would collapse completely, in seconds?

FDNY: Chief! Chief we think WTC7 is going to collapse!

Chief: Will it collapse in seconds?

FDNY: Errrr... uh.... no it will take three minutes twenty three seconds to collapse.

Chief: Well then, we won't worry about it then.

FDNY: But it might collapse in about 14 seconds too!

Chief: In that case we'll pull everyone away from it.

FDNY: Okay, gotcha.

Devil's Advocate

14th July 2007, 01:46 AM

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 02:08 AM

Belz brought up a good question that I believe needs to be addressed, Revolutionary91.

How do you determine what is a false flag and what is not?
Or are you of the opinion that all terrorism is government created/ supported/ funded/ directed?

Simultaneous drills involving precisely the same scenario happening at the same time are a clue.

Here is Peter Power of Visor Consulting talking on the radio on the morning of 7/7. He says they were conducting a drill with 1000 people that simulated bombs going off at precisely the same stations that were bombed.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Peter%20Power%20on%20BBC%20Radio%20Five%20Live%200 7%20Jul%202005%20(Emergency%20Exercises).mp3 (http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Peter%20Power%20on%20BBC%20Radio%20Five%20Live%200 7%20Jul%202005%20%28Emergency%20Exercises%29.mp3)

AZCat

14th July 2007, 02:15 AM

Simultaneous drills involving precisely the same scenario happening at the same time are a clue.

Here is Peter Power of Visor Consulting talking on the radio on the morning of 7/7. He says they were conducting a drill with 1000 people that simulated bombs going off at precisely the same stations that were bombed.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Peter%20Power%20on%20BBC%20Radio%20Five%20Live%200 7%20Jul%202005%20(Emergency%20Exercises).mp3 (http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Peter%20Power%20on%20BBC%20Radio%20Five%20Live%200 7%20Jul%202005%20%28Emergency%20Exercises%29.mp3)

Does this mean that the Chernobyl disaster was a false flag? After all, they were conducting a drill with the reactor's safety systems when the safety systems failed.

Just so you know, this suggestion was in jest. I think your "system" for determining false flags is flawed. Why in the world would the alleged perpetrators of a false flag want to leave such an obvious "clue" for people to find, when there appears to be no benefit to the alleged false flag operation from the actions you claim are a "clue".

uk_dave

14th July 2007, 02:16 AM

Simultaneous drills involving precisely the same scenario happening at the same time are a clue.

Here is Peter Power of Visor Consulting talking on the radio on the morning of 7/7. He says they were conducting a drill with 1000 people that simulated bombs going off at precisely the same stations that were bombed.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Peter%20Power%20on%20BBC%20Radio%20Five%20Live%200 7%20Jul%202005%20(Emergency%20Exercises).mp3 (http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Peter%20Power%20on%20BBC%20Radio%20Five%20Live%200 7%20Jul%202005%20%28Emergency%20Exercises%29.mp3)

No they're not. Drills which appear to mirror reality merely indicate that those entrusted with our safety actually have enough imagination to be able to predict possible terrorist scenarios.
It is also worth pointing out that drills have been held (actual physical drills) simulating chemical and biological attack. But you conveniently ignore those.

As for the visor drills, in what way does an office bound powerpoint presentation for business people, involving not a single member of the emergency services on the ground, actually mirror what took place on 7/7?
How did this simulation impact on the actual event rev91?

The Doc

14th July 2007, 02:22 AM

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

Run a search for the word "train" on that page Rev91.

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 02:31 AM

No they're not. Drills which appear to mirror reality merely indicate that those entrusted with our safety actually have enough imagination to be able to predict possible terrorist scenarios.
It is also worth pointing out that drills have been held (actual physical drills) simulating chemical and biological attack. But you conveniently ignore those.

As for the visor drills, in what way does an office bound powerpoint presentation for business people, involving not a single member of the emergency services on the ground, actually mirror what took place on 7/7?
How did this simulation impact on the actual event rev91?

It did involve people on the ground. There were a thousand people involved in the drill which simulated bombings on the same stations that were attacked. Do you know how many train and tube stations there are in london?

The motive is obvious. Plausible deniability. If an operative involved in the false flag attack gets caught by people not involved, he can just say he was part of the drill.

The Doc

14th July 2007, 02:35 AM

It did involve people on the ground. There were a thousand people involved in the drill which simulated bombings on the same stations that were attacked.

Back that up. I'm not saying I can prove it false, but show us some evidence when you make your claims.

Do you know how many train and tube stations there are in london?Let's try your game.

No, I do not know how many. Enlighten me.

The motive is obvious. Plausible deniability. If an operative involved in the false flag attack gets caught by people not involved, he can just say he was part of the drill.So, let's say someone gets caught in a subway with explosives on them. Are you aware that live explosives are not used in drills?

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 02:42 AM

Back that up. I'm not saying I can prove it false, but show us some evidence when you make your claims.

If you bothered to listen to the audio I posted you would hear him say that a thousand people were involved and they went into action when they realised it was the real thing

Let's try your game.

No, I do not know how many. Enlighten me.There are 275 tube stations for a start. What are the chances of them picking the exact same ones.?

So, let's say someone gets caught in a subway with explosives on them. Are you aware that live explosives are not used in drills?That is often how a drill is turned live, the fake explosives are replaced.

Devil's Advocate

14th July 2007, 02:52 AM

If you bothered to listen to the audio I posted you would hear him say that a thousand people were involved and they went into action when they realised it was the real thing

There are 275 tube stations for a start. What are the chances of them picking the exact same ones.?

That is often how a drill is turned live, the fake explosives are replaced.

Were the people in the drill at the place where the explosives went off? It would seem foolish to set up an event and get caught in the explosions you yourself set, if in fact they were there.

The Doc

14th July 2007, 02:54 AM

That is often how a drill is turned live, the fake explosives are replaced.

You state that as if it's fact. Want to provide evidence to back it up?

Also to note is that quite often these "fake explosives" don't look remotely like real explosives. Someone would notice if real explosives had been switched in.

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 02:59 AM

You state that as if it's fact. Want to provide evidence to back it up?

Also to note is that quite often these "fake explosives" don't look remotely like real explosives. Someone would notice if real explosives had been switched in.

So you are just going to ignore this incredible "coincidence" of the terrorists and the the drill people picking exactly the same stations out of a choice of 275, to be blown up at the same time on the same day?

The Doc

14th July 2007, 02:59 AM

If you bothered to listen to the audio I posted you would hear him say that a thousand people were involved and they went into action when they realised it was the real thing.

I take it you've read this?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705powerresponds.htm
"Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows: It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.
"However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences [??]. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.
"In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
"Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).
Peter Power"

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 03:04 AM

I take it you've read this?

Yes I have read it. It contradicts what he originally said in that audio, on the day of 7/7. Have you listened to that audio yet? Are you not concerned that he changed his story? When a truther like W Rodriguez changes his story he is called a liar, I hope you won't exhinit double standards.

uk_dave

14th July 2007, 03:16 AM

So the same person gives apparently conflicting reports of his companies exercise.

How are we to judge which is true?

Well, firstly, his is a private company. He does not work for the emergency services but provides advice and training for companies so that they can formulate contingency plans. That being the case, there is no way in the world he would have at his disposal thousands of people, including the emergency services, to conduct his training exercise.

Secondly, he has clarified his comments in the light of the attention his original interview received from the ct crowd. That to me suggests that he was imprecise in his original interview. To you, no doubt, it suggests he was leaned on, but then, that's just you.

Care to explain what impact these exercises had on the actual terrorist event?

Alareth

14th July 2007, 04:08 AM

So you are just going to ignore this incredible "coincidence" of the terrorists and the the drill people picking exactly the same stations out of a choice of 275, to be blown up at the same time on the same day?

Sometimes a coincidence is just that, a coincidence.

Sometimes coincidences exist only in the mind of the observer.

Don't fall into a mind trap that all coincidences are sinister.

uk_dave

14th July 2007, 04:16 AM

Yes I have read it. It contradicts what he originally said in that audio, on the day of 7/7. Have you listened to that audio yet? Are you not concerned that he changed his story? When a truther like W Rodriguez changes his story he is called a liar, I hope you won't exhinit double standards.

oh and rodriguez changed his account of what he experienced on the day. That's a long way from someone changing how they described what they were actually doing on the day.

If this guy had 1000 people taking part in his exercise, as boots on the ground, should be pretty simple to confirm it from one of them, shouldn't it?

Has this been done? Or is it just another one of those things the 'truthers' love to speculate about but are terrified of actually confirming, because I know and they know they can't confirm it.

So much more fun to let their limited imaginations run free, isn't it?

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 07:14 AM

Sometimes a coincidence is just that, a coincidence.

Sometimes coincidences exist only in the mind of the observer.

Don't fall into a mind trap that all coincidences are sinister.

That is one hell of a coincidence. Another coincidence was that various surveillance cameras weren't working. How convenient.

uk_dave

14th July 2007, 07:16 AM

That is one hell of a coincidence. Another coincidence was that various surveillance cameras weren't working. How convenient.

Really? Such as?

Remember there was only one attack carried out above ground. What did you expect to see on cctv footage?

The Doc

14th July 2007, 07:19 AM

That is one hell of a coincidence. Another coincidence was that various surveillance cameras weren't working. How convenient.

Seriously, dude. If you're going to make claims, please back them up. Show me some proof that security cameras related to the bombings were not working in London on 7/7.

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 07:23 AM

Seriously, dude. If you're going to make claims, please back them up. Show me some proof that security cameras related to the bombings were not working in London on 7/7.

But the investigation received a serious setback when it was discovered the CCTV cameras on the bus that blew up were not working so detectives will not get vital images of the bomber.
One senior Yard source said: "It's a big blow and a disappointment. If the cameras had been running we would have had pin-sharp close-up pictures of the person who carried out this atrocity.
"We don't know if the driver forgot to switch them on or if there was a technical problem but there are no images."
The bus had four cameras - one covering people getting on, the second at the exit doors and one on each deck scanning the length of the vehicle.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15717499&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--58--the-hunt-name_page.html

The Doc

14th July 2007, 07:34 AM

As your link suggests, it can be put down to something as simple as the driver not turning the CCTV system on.

Consider Occam's Razor. It would suggest that the driver forgetting to activate the CCTV is much more plausible than some evil government secret black ops delta force agents secretly sabotaging the bus's CCTV. However, in your delusional conspiracy world, nothing is ever simple. There is always some illogical evil plot mastered by the highest levels of government.

I fail to see what effect disabling the bus's CCTV would have anyway, seeing as other CCTV footage linked the bombers, including the bus bomber, Hasib Hussain to the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4683555.stm
Police have issued a CCTV image and a photo of the man they say carried out the Number 30 bus bombing in London last week, in which 13 others died.What do you believe happened on the number 30 bus Rev91? A bomb went off in the fuel tank? Please educate me on your opinion.

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 07:39 AM

My delusional conspiracy world? You can't be civil, ignore for you.

DGM

14th July 2007, 07:41 AM

My delusional conspiracy world? You can't be civil, ignore for you.
Could you please reply to the question at hand.

What do you believe happened on the number 30 bus Rev91? A bomb went off in the fuel tank? Please educate me on your opinion.

volatile

14th July 2007, 07:42 AM

Rev! He wasn't even supposed to be on that bus, or any bus at all. He planned to bomb the Northern Line, but couldn't as the system was closed down before he could board a train. He was on a bus that was diverted, and not even supposed to be where it was.

How does your IVC account for that?

The Doc

14th July 2007, 07:45 AM

Toughen up dude. If you think "delusional conspiracy world" was insulting, you better man up before you wander into the real world.

uk_dave

14th July 2007, 08:09 AM

I think rev91 is just being set up as a patsy over on LCF.

Avery is hedging his bets that a 15 year old as moderator will eventually cause enough friction that he can then shut down the forum once again.

(And if it doesn't come to pass, I can then claim that Avery, having read this thread and seen that his plan was rumbled, decided to abort it. My name is Alex Jones, and I'm here all week. Thank you. Try the veal.)

The Doc

14th July 2007, 08:13 AM

I think rev91 is just being set up as a patsy over on LCF.

He's just a typical truther. He asks question, after question, after question, until people tire of his immature games and quit talking to him. He will then claim victory once one of his questions goes unanswered.

Not to mention, throughout this whole ordeal he will gradually put the entire forum on his ignore list.

Regnad Kcin

14th July 2007, 10:31 AM

He's just a typical truther. He asks question, after question, after question, until people tire of his immature games and quit talking to him. He will then claim victory once one of his questions goes unanswered.

Not to mention, throughout this whole ordeal he will gradually put the entire forum on his ignore list.Not to mention something else: he has ignored my request to keep the thread on topic. But then that would mean admitting he can't answer the opening question.

Belz...

14th July 2007, 04:36 PM

Did they report [7 WTC] would collapse completely, in seconds?

In how much time would you expect it to collapse ?

How do you determine what is a false flag and what is not?
Simultaneous drills involving precisely the same scenario happening at the same time are a clue.

A clue to what ? How do you know they're the same scenario and how can you tell that it's "no coincidence" ?

Of course, your entire reasoning is nonsense. If drills of a particular scenario happening at the same time as the real thing were a clue to them being false flags, it would mean that the clue turns up only when morons design the drill.

So you are just going to ignore this incredible "coincidence" of the terrorists and the the drill people picking exactly the same stations out of a choice of 275, to be blown up at the same time on the same day?

Unfortunately, that's the kind of reasoning that only works in movies, because it conveniently sidesteps the need to actually PROVE the theory.

That is one hell of a coincidence.

Irrelevant.

My delusional conspiracy world? You can't be civil, ignore for you.

If you're going to ignore other people for presenting opposing viewpoints in a rather uncivil manner, then you're never going to hear what anyone has to say. That ALSO is very convenient, don't you think ?

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 04:38 PM

I'm sorry... but irony! :D

What irony? People complained about my inability to use the button properly. I sent PMs and eventually managed to learn. Shouldn't he do as much?

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 04:42 PM

What irony? People complained about my inability to use the button properly. I sent PMs and eventually managed to learn. Shouldn't he do as much?

Excuse me....if you'll notice I was quoting you. Your inept attempt at quoting is what messed up my formatting. Notice it doesnt happen when i'm quoting anyone else.

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 05:00 PM

[quote=Revolutionary91;2767316]That is one hell of a coincidence. Another coincidence was that various surveillance cameras weren't working. How convenient.

I like the way the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy operates.

They blow up a building that has no conceivable connection to their evil plan to start wars with Afghanistan and Iraq...

They do it just to leave clues for really stupid young guys...

Their purpose in starting the wars is to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, which would be a terrible thing although nobody can begin to guess why, and steal oil from Iraq...

No pipeline is being built or is even being contemplated;
No Iraqi oil has been, or will be, stolen...

They promise to find WMD in Iraq, realizing that if they fail to do so, they will be eviscerated by the political opposition and its media auxiliaries...

They know full well that won't find any weapons, but they invade anyway...

They somehow "forget" to plant the weapons they now desperately need to find...

They come within a whisker of losing the presidential election to a man who would have been reckoned, by once-conventional standards, unelectable...

They stage a "false flag" attack in Madrid that leads to the ouster of one of the few governments friendly to their goals...

They stage another one in London that shakes the resolve of their staunchest ally...

They neglect to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden, a CIA-asset who doesn't even exist, in time to prevent a crushing mid-term election defeat that strips them of most of their power...

Uh, unless you're living in an Ace-Baker dreamworld, where are the accomplishments? A mathematically-impossible conspiracy consisting of thousands of perps and accomplices, operating with an unlimited budget, and they have succeeded over a period of six years in sweeping their party out of control of both houses of Congress and transforming it into a minority party for the forseeable future.

Is there something we're missing?

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 05:08 PM

[quote=Revolutionary91;2768166]Excuse me....if you'll notice I was quoting you. Your inept attempt at quoting is what messed up my formatting. Notice it doesnt happen when i'm quoting anyone else.

Oooh! Squeak! Squeak! Squeal!

He said I was "inept"!!!

Maybe I should put the tyke on my "ignore" list.

Damn! I don't have an "ignore" list.

Hey, weasel, you ignored everything I said.

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 05:11 PM

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 05:13 PM

[quote]

I like the way the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy operates.

They blow up a building that has no conceivable connection to their evil plan to start wars with Afghanistan and Iraq...

They do it just to leave clues for really stupid young guys...

Their purpose in starting the wars is to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, which would be a terrible thing although nobody can begin to guess why, and steal oil from Iraq...

No pipeline is being built or is even being contemplated;
No Iraqi oil has been, or will be, stolen...

They promise to find WMD in Iraq, realizing that if they fail to do so, they will be eviscerated by the political opposition and its media auxiliaries...

They know full well that won't find any weapons, but they invade anyway...

They somehow "forget" to plant the weapons they now desperately need to find...

They come within a whisker of losing the presidential election to a man who would have been reckoned, by once-conventional standards, unelectable...

They stage a "false flag" attack in Madrid that leads to the ouster of one of the few governments friendly to their goals...

They stage another one in London that shakes the resolve of their staunchest ally...

They neglect to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden, a CIA-asset who doesn't even exist, in time to prevent a crushing mid-term election defeat that strips them of most of their power...

Uh, unless you're living in an Ace-Baker dreamworld, where are the accomplishments? A mathematically-impossible conspiracy consisting of thousands of perps and accomplices, operating with an unlimited budget, and they have succeeded over a period of six years in sweeping their party out of control of both houses of Congress and transforming it into a minority party for the forseeable future.

Is there something we're missing?

http://kevinrobinson.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/strawman.jpg

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 05:16 PM

[quote]

Excuse me, I notice that you are lying. Please see post #51.

Yes in post 51 I was quoting you. YOU cant use the quote feature, please learn.

DGM

14th July 2007, 05:16 PM

[quote=pomeroo;2768205]

http://kevinrobinson.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/strawman.jpg
I like that pick. Will come in handy with the truthers around here. Thanks
I'll have to photoshop NWO on the hat.

DGM

Calcas

14th July 2007, 05:16 PM

That is one hell of a coincidence. Another coincidence was that various surveillance cameras weren't working. How convenient.

Coincidences are largely underappreciated.

They happen every day in every way.

Take a statistics class if you can and you'll learn something about probability and reasoning.

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 05:19 PM

Coincidences are largely underappreciated.

They happen every day in every way.

Take a statistics class if you can and you'll learn something about probability and reasoning.

For pomeroo, look what happens when I quote calcas. It works perfectly.

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 05:26 PM

[quote=Revolutionary91;2768232]

http://kevinrobinson.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/strawman.jpg

Gee, you work hard to say absolutely nothing when you've been refuted crushingly.

Incidentally, none of the points I raised were straw men.

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 05:28 PM

For pomeroo, look what happens when I quote calcas. It works perfectly.

I'm awed by your debating ability.

You might trying reading what calcas wrote.

By the way, you were lying. See post #51.

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 05:32 PM

Pomeroo, take your own advice and learn to use the quote feature. You start a chain of messed up formatting whenever anyone quotes you. That is simply a fact that everyone can see.

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 05:37 PM

Tell us how smoothly the cabal is running. What aims have been realized? Explain how the crushing defeat in the 2006 elections helped advance the scheme. Best of all, explain why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy didn't announce Osama's (remember, he isn't real) death in time to stave off the disaster at the polls.

Now, I'm pretending that I'm you. Notice how this looks and compare with your "inept" effort.

[quote=pomeroo;2763881]
You ask dumb questions.

Notice anything? Compare with your post # 51.

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 05:42 PM

[quote=pomeroo;2768205]

http://kevinrobinson.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/strawman.jpg

Do you understand how it looks to respond to a series of observations that demolish your fantasies by dismissing them with a term you don't understand?

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 05:48 PM

There you go again. Why is quote written above your quote box?

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 05:51 PM

There you go again. Why is quote written above your quote box?

I don't know. Perhaps someone once explained it to me and I forgot.

Why don't you respond to the observations I made on your imaginary conspiracy?

Revolutionary91

14th July 2007, 05:53 PM

I don't know. Perhaps someone once explained it to me and I forgot.

Why don't you respond to the observations I made on your imaginary conspiracy?

Your points are ridiculous. Your strawman is that the conspiracy is vast and contains thousands of people. We aren't claiming that.

TruthSeeker1234

14th July 2007, 06:10 PM

So they faked a tragedy to gain support for a war to advance their evil capitalist agenda, so they could eventually introduce socialized healthcare? That's genius.

The last thing in the world that "they" want is free-market capitalism. War spending is corporatism, or corporate welfare, or socialism or fascism, pick your term. They come down to the same thing. When government forcibly extracts real wealth from productive citizens, and then spends it, that is not free-market capitalism. Free-market capitalism is what occurs spontaneously in the absence of government interference.

If you think the "Republicans" (or the "Democrats") favor free market capitalism, you are completely wrong.

TruthSeeker1234

14th July 2007, 06:17 PM

The vastness of the conspiracy is an interesting question. I have an in-law who is an architect. He flat refuses to discuss 9/11. He will not look at the videos and pictures. He knows the towers were blown up, but he looks the other way.

Why?

I'll tell you why.

Government hugging.

He's afraid that if the truth were to become widely understood, it would lead to a "Constitutional Crises". He fears that more than he fears the status quo. So he looks the other way.

I think a great many people fit in that category. They know the truth about 9/11. And they don't like it. But they fear the alternative even more.

Is such a person "in on it"? Are they part of the "impossibly vast conspiracy"?

Or is it more correct to view this aspect as a syndrome?

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 06:25 PM

Your points are ridiculous. Your strawman is that the conspiracy is vast and contains thousands of people. We aren't claiming that.

No, my points, far from being ridiculous, actually destroy the nonsensical snake oil you peddle. Your total inability to cope with them demonstrates that I'm right.

You don't understand what a straw man is. The conspiracy concocted by the tinfoil-hatters is necessarily vast. You and your fellow fantasists pretend that a cabal was able to cow into silence thousands of people across a broad spectrum of professions and industries. We've been down this road many times, but as you are new to the forum, I'll run through the drill again.

You claim that the two hundred researchers working for NIST, along with the eight hundred unaffiliated scientists and engineers consulted by the agency, are complicit in this staggering crime. Whether they are--absurdly--willing accomplices (yeah, we'll buy that a Democrat working for NIST has a perfectly understandable motive to acquiesce in mass murder for no other purpose than to line the pockets of Dick Cheney's cronies) or--slightly less absurdly--normal people intimidated from speaking out by an invisible Gestapo, we have a thousand people who KNOW that the Bush administration perpetrated a heinous crime. Add to that number the people who work for FEMA; for the FAA; the air traffic controllers; the forensic examiners; the police and fire departments of New York City and Washington, D.C.; the people who work for the Port Authority; all the top brass in NORAD (some of whom are Democrats, let us remember); the Boeing Corporation; American Airlines; United Airlines; the newspaper editors who printed passenger manifests showing the seating positions of the hijackers; seismologists at the Lamont-Doherty labs whose data showed no secondary explosions--and on and on.

The problem is that conspiracy liars are more than simply dishonest; they are incredibly stupid. They tell themselves that their imaginary conspiracy is small, but they refuse to recognize the impossibility of what they claim. There would be THOUSANDS of people who know that an unprecedented crime had been committed. That NOT A SINGLE ONE of them would blow the whistle is matter of simple probability.

Suppose that instead of thousands of people knowing the secret, there are only one hundred. Suppose further that these hundred people are extraordinarily good at keeping their mouths shut. Assign them an average probability of .9 (a typical human's might be .5) of never spilling the beans. This conspiracy--much, much smaller than yours--has a 99.97% probability of letting the cat out of the bag (use a calculator to raise .9 to the hundredth power).

The gigantic network of perps, accomplices, and coerced innocents posited by conspiracy liars would let the secret slip far more often, 99.99999...% of the time. The math is childishly easy. You can let everyone involved clam up with a probability of .99--they're all James Bonds and G. Gordon Liddys--and your conspiracy will still unravel with near-certainty.

Who is in the invisible army that knocks everyone into line? How is it funded?

Show us one of my original observations that constitutes a real straw man.

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 06:38 PM

The vastness of the conspiracy is an interesting question. I have an in-law who is an architect. He flat refuses to discuss 9/11. He will not look at the videos and pictures. He knows the towers were blown up, but he looks the other way.

Why ?

Nobody "knows" the towers were blown up. It is impossible to know something that is false.

I'll tell you why.

Government hugging.

He's afraid that if the truth were to become widely understood, it would lead to a "Constitutional Crises". He fears that more than he fears the status quo. So he looks the other way.

Most sane people hold the government in varying degrees of contempt. They reject the pernicious nonsense of conspiracy liars because it is so very silly and implausible.

I think a great many people fit in that category. They know the truth about 9/11. And they don't like it. But they fear the alternative even more.

Is such a person "in on it"? Are they part of the "impossibly vast conspiracy"?

The "truth" about the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01 is known. Implacable enemies of the West in general and America in particular had been attacking targets with impunity for over a decade. Failures in intelligence-gathering, the result of conscious efforts to weaken the agencies responsible, allowed a spectacular attack to succeed. Our enemies believed they would suffer no, or few, consequences. People like yourself are determined to validate their assumptions.

No "Constitutional Crisis" would attend the apprehension of criminals in government. You are blowing smoke. The Dems would gleefully issue subpoenas, stage hearings, and exult at the convictions. Bush, Cheney, and whoever else was involved in the planning and execution of the deed would go to jail. Life would go on. You are fooling nobody.

Or is it more correct to view this aspect as a syndrome?

It is mathematically impossible for thousands of people who know a terrible secret to keep quiet about it indefinitely.

Calcas

14th July 2007, 06:48 PM

No, my points, far from being ridiculous, actually destroy the nonsensical snake oil you peddle. Your total inability to cope with them demonstrates that I'm right.

You don't understand what a straw man is. The conspiracy concocted by the tinfoil-hatters is necessarily vast. You and your fellow fantasists pretend that a cabal was able to cow into silence thousands of people across a broad spectrum of professions and industries. We've been down this road many times, but as you are new to the forum, I'll run through the drill again.

You claim that the two hundred researchers working for NIST, along with the eight hundred unaffiliated scientists and engineers consulted by the agency, are complicit in this staggering crime. Whether they are--absurdly--willing accomplices (yeah, we'll buy that a Democrat working for NIST has a perfectly understandable motive to acquiesce in mass murder for no other purpose than to line the pockets of Dick Cheney's cronies) or--slightly less absurdly--normal people intimidated from speaking out by an invisible Gestapo, we have a thousand people who KNOW that the Bush administration perpetrated a heinous crime. Add to that number the people who work for FEMA; for the FAA; the air traffic controllers; the forensic examiners; the police and fire departments of New York City and Washington, D.C.; the people who work for the Port Authority; all the top brass in NORAD (some of whom are Democrats, let us remember); the Boeing Corporation; American Airlines; United Airlines; the newspaper editors who printed passenger manifests showing the seating positions of the hijackers; seismologists at the Lamont-Doherty labs whose data showed no secondary explosions--and on and on.

The problem is that conspiracy liars are more than simply dishonest; they are incredibly stupid. They tell themselves that their imaginary conspiracy is small, but they refuse to recognize the impossibility of what they claim. There would be THOUSANDS of people who know that an unprecedented crime had been committed. That NOT A SINGLE ONE of them would blow the whistle is matter of simple probability.

Suppose that instead of thousands of people knowing the secret, there are only one hundred. Suppose further that these hundred people are extraordinarily good at keeping their mouths shut. Assign them an average probability of .9 (a typical human's might be .5) of never spilling the beans. This conspiracy--much, much smaller than yours--has a 99.97% probability of letting the cat out of the bag (use a calculator to raise .9 to the hundredth power).

The gigantic network of perps, accomplices, and coerced innocents posited by conspiracy liars posit would let the secret slip far more often, 99.99999...% of the time. The math is childishly easy. You can let everyone involved clam up with a probability of .99--they're all James Bonds and G. Gordon Liddys--and your conspiracy will still unravel with near-certainty.

Who is in the invisible army that knocks everyone into line? How is it funded?

Show us one of my original observations that constitutes a real straw man.

Nice job Ron.

Nominated.

TruthSeeker1234

14th July 2007, 06:53 PM

Dave Rogers

14th July 2007, 07:02 PM

So you are just going to ignore this incredible "coincidence" of the terrorists and the the drill people picking exactly the same stations out of a choice of 275, to be blown up at the same time on the same day?

Before you do your probability calculations, take into account the fact that the choices were not by any means random. Terrorists would naturally select the busiest stations - blowing up Pinner, Queensbury or South Ruislip in the rush hour would be a waste of a good suicide bomber - and so would the drill people constructing likely scenarios to defend against. Your "coincidence" could simply suggest that the people constructing the drill made a fairly good assessment of what were the most likely targets.

Dave

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 07:03 PM

TruthSeeker1234

14th July 2007, 07:30 PM

Let's take a provable example, of great current interest to me - the behavior of the news media people. As you know, I would very much like to get broadcast quality copies of 9/11 videos. As far as I can tell, they have been kept secret for almost 6 years.

There are tens of thousands of people who work for network television. Since there are persistent and growing allegations of video fakery, and since the only defense against said allegations is that the anomalies are compression artifacts and poor-resolution, the television people would have an interest in making the high quality versions available.

Even discounting that such release would serve the interest of these individuals, by the Ron Wieck theory, it would be "mathematically impossible" for this secret to be kept. Television news employees are not "spooks".

Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, the broadcast quality videos remain secret.

Corsair 115

14th July 2007, 07:50 PM

Let's take a provable example, of great current interest to me - the behavior of the news media people. I keep asking you this and you have yet to respond: what about the media of other nations? What about the television networks and newspapers of Canada, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Finland, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Austria? Are they are engaged in some sort of cover up too?

As you know, I would very much like to get broadcast quality copies of 9/11 videos. Have you tried contacting the news networks of other nations in your quest? Has the fact that other nations have media too even crossed your mind?

Since there are persistent and growing allegations of video fakery... Mostly coming from you, as far as I can see. Anyone with a good pair of eyes and who can spot special effects a mile away knows the claims of fakery are completely baseless. And that's not even touching upon the issue of all the eyewitnesses to the events and the still photographs.

I suggested this to you in another thread, and I'm going to repeat it: you really need to read up on special effects, on how they originated, the individuals who pioneered the concepts involved, and how the methods by which effects are done have changed over the years. Without that grounding in the field, you cannot hope to have any authority in being able to spot what is and what is not a fake.

...and since the only defense against said allegations is that the anomalies are compression artifacts and poor-resolution, the television people would have an interest in making the high quality versions available. Why on Earth are they obliged to prove something which most rational folks already understand? The video footage was not faked. See above.

Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, the broadcast quality videos remain secret.To repeat what I said earlier: have you even tried contacting the television networks of other nations to see what material they have onhand?

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 07:51 PM

Let's take a provable example, of great current interest to me - the behavior of the news media people. As you know, I would very much like to get broadcast quality copies of 9/11 videos. As far as I can tell, they have been kept secret for almost 6 years.

Your interest in Morgan Reynolds's idiocy stems from your political agenda. His uninformed, baseless claims are insane as they ignore thousands of eyewitnesses who watched a plane hit the South Tower.

There are tens of thousands of people who work for network television.

And the great majority of them oppose Bush's policies.

Since there are persistent and growing allegations of video fakery,

A falsehood. A tiny handful of crackpots are raising an absurd non-issue. There is no controversy here.

and since the only defense against said allegations is that the anomalies are compression artifacts and poor-resolution, the television people would have an interest in making the high quality versions available.

The "allegations" are fabrications by incompetents and crazies. Thousands of live witnesses observed the event that a handful of America-hating sickos pretend never happened. The networks are under no obligation to cater to the deranged fantasies of fools and liars.

Even discounting that such release would serve the interest of these individuals, by the Ron Wieck theory, it would be "mathematically impossible" for this secret to be kept. Television news employees are not "spooks".

Yes, it certainly would be impossible for thousands of network employees to keep such an explosive secret. But, typically, you are too obtuse to understand the implications of your own words.

Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, the broadcast quality videos remain secret.

Yes, as always, you are wrong. The broadcast videos are in no rational, coherent sense "a secret." Nobody thinks they are "secret." They have been aired countless times. If a psycho imagines that the plane observed by many thousands of eyewitnesses really didn't exist, it is not the task of television networks to battle for his sanity.

Dave Rogers

14th July 2007, 07:59 PM

Let's take a provable example, of great current interest to me - the behavior of the news media people. As you know, I would very much like to get broadcast quality copies of 9/11 videos. As far as I can tell, they have been kept secret for almost 6 years.

You're talking about videos that were actually broadcast on 9/11, right? By what definition of the word can this be described as keeping them "secret"?

Even discounting that such release would serve the interest of these individuals, by the Ron Wieck theory, it would be "mathematically impossible" for this secret to be kept. Television news employees are not "spooks".

I think, in this case, you and Ron Wieck are using slightly different definitions of the word. Ron is referring to something that might better be referred to as a "guilty secret", the idea that many people are aware that they are accessories to a monstrously immoral act which will prompt at least some of them (via guilty consciences) to admit in some way that the act took place. You are referring, instead, to the keeping of specific information that, to the people keeping it confidential, has no moral stigma attached. I seriously doubt that any television news employees feel that their actions in recording the events of 9/11 were immoral, so what is there for them to confess?

I note that you may claim otherwise, but in doing so you would be assuming the conclusion that you are trying to prove

Dave

DGM

14th July 2007, 08:28 PM

As you know, I would very much like to get broadcast quality copies of 9/11 videos.

I very much doubt that you really want these videos. They will surely prove you wrong and you have no interest in that.

The fact that there is dozens of other videos and thousands of witnesses that you refuse to listen to proves this right.

Enjoy the conference where they will have no problems listening to your lies.

Travis

14th July 2007, 08:39 PM

Mathematically impossible for people to keep secrets? LOL.

There are currently about 30,000 people in the NSA. What are they doing right now?

Ron, you don't know. Do you know why you don't know? Because it's a freaking secret, that's why.

The NSA has been in operation for decades. What were they doing in 1987? 1994? Ditto the secret service. Ditto the CIA. Ditto military black ops.

Not everyone in the NSA is going to be privy to the most sensitive classified information. The government knows that the more people that know something the more likely it is to leak even if historic measures are taken.

Look at the Manhattan Project. Unprecedented secrecy surrounded it and the Soviets still infiltrated it and knew more about it than some allies did.

The Pentagon Papers got leaked, and published. Alcrich Ames sold numerous secrets to the KGB while employed by the CIA. Robert Hanssen sold out the FBI for 15 years. As for the NSA, which you mentioned specifically, it has been infiltrated numerous times. Jack E. Dunlap, Victor Norris Hamilton, Bernon F- Mitchell and William H Martin all spied for or defected to the Soviet Union.

If you need to keep something secret, do it small. The U2 remained secret because Lockheed had a really small handpicked team (called the Skunk Works, you may have heard of it) that designed, built and tested it.

Pomeroo's point is valid. In six years not one leak. No memo's sent anonymously to a Newspaper or Network News office. No suicides with a tell all note and evidence. Nothing, nada, zip, not even with the promise of fame, book deals, and being a hero to entice someone, anyone, to do it.

Also keep in mind that this is still a world with national intelligence agencies. I think one would be foolishly optimistic to think that there isn't one spy for someone in the NSA, CIA or State Department. If Russia, China or whomever came upon this don't you think they would have used such intell to their gain? Why would they sit on it?

No, this is, indeed, an impossibly vast conspiracy.

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 09:23 PM

Not everyone in the NSA is going to be privy to the most sensitive classified information. The government knows that the more people that know something the more likely it is to leak even if historic measures are taken.

Look at the Manhattan Project. Unprecedented secrecy surrounded it and the Soviets still infiltrated it and knew more about it than some allies did.

The Pentagon Papers got leaked, and published. Alcrich Ames sold numerous secrets to the KGB while employed by the CIA. Robert Hanssen sold out the FBI for 15 years. As for the NSA, which you mentioned specifically, it has been infiltrated numerous times. Jack E. Dunlap, Victor Norris Hamilton, Bernon F- Mitchell and William H Martin all spied for or defected to the Soviet Union.

If you need to keep something secret, do it small. The U2 remained secret because Lockheed had a really small handpicked team (called the Skunk Works, you may have heard of it) that designed, built and tested it.

Pomeroo's point is valid. In six years not one leak. No memo's sent anonymously to a Newspaper or Network News office. No suicides with a tell all note and evidence. Nothing, nada, zip, not even with the promise of fame, book deals, and being a hero to entice someone, anyone, to do it.

Also keep in mind that this is still a world with national intelligence agencies. I think one would be foolishly optimistic to think that there isn't one spy for someone in the NSA, CIA or State Department. If Russia, China or whomever came upon this don't you think they would have used such intell to their gain? Why would they sit on it?

No, this is, indeed, an impossibly vast conspiracy.

Travis, you summed it up very well. Under what conceivable circumstances would unfriendly states such as Russia, China, and France--to say nothing of hostile parties with a concrete stake in the outcome such as North Korea, Iran and Syria--sit on evidence that would topple Bush and destroy American credibility for decades? The conspiracy liars are oblivious to the implications of their own myth.
Corsair asked the delusional Ace Baker to present his fabrications to the media of a nation that seeks to undermine American foreign policy. He won't because they would dismiss him as a lunatic. If he had something to show them, they'd run with it.
At least Lyte Trip was sane enough to leave the table when his bluff was called.

Travis

14th July 2007, 09:46 PM

Travis, you summed it up very well. Under what conceivable circumstances would unfriendly states such as Russia, China, and France--to say nothing of hostile parties with a concrete stake in the outcome such as North Korea, Iran and Syria--sit on evidence that would topple Bush and destroy American credibility for decades? The conspiracy liars are oblivious to the implications of their own myth.
Corsair asked the delusional Ace Baker to present his fabrications to the media of a nation that seeks to undermine American foreign policy. He won't because they would dismiss him as a lunatic. If he had something to show them, they'd run with it.
At least Lyte Trip was sane enough to leave the table when his bluff was called.

Yep, not thinking out the implications of their accusations is classic Truther illogic. So Lyte Trip has given up on his insane flyover hypothesis? Or has he just taken it elsewhere?

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 09:55 PM

Yep, not thinking out the implications of their accusations is classic Truther illogic. So Lyte Trip has given up on his insane flyover hypothesis? Or has he just taken it elsewhere?

I hope I didn't mislead anybody. Lyte Trip is a complete fraud. He will peddle his snake oil to anyone dumb enough to swallow it. He didn't suddenly discover intellectual integrity. He discovered, however, that people here understand very clearly that if he has proof that Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon, he can take it to a real reporter and win a Pulitzer Prize. That he continues to rave exclusively to tiny groups of like-minded wankers on the net demonstrates pretty conclusively what he thinks of his own "proof."

Travis

14th July 2007, 10:32 PM

I hope I didn't mislead anybody. Lyte Trip is a complete fraud. He will peddle his snake oil to anyone dumb enough to swallow it. He didn't suddenly discover intellectual integrity. He discovered, however, that people here understand very clearly that if he has proof that Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon, he can take it to a real reporter and win a Pulitzer Prize. That he continues to rave exclusively to tiny groups of like-minded wankers on the net demonstrates pretty conclusively what he thinks of his own "proof."

Ahh, gotcha.

T.A.M.

14th July 2007, 10:33 PM

Your points are ridiculous. Your strawman is that the conspiracy is vast and contains thousands of people. We aren't claiming that.

Your argument that Pomeroo is putting forward a strawman argument is invalid.

For it to be a strawman, he would have to be setting up a weak misrepresentation of your argument, so that it could be easily refuted. His argument that a conspiracy by the USG to plot and carry out the 9/11 attacks would need to be vast and involve thousands is not far fetched or weak, but really rather quite accurate. truthers simply despise the argument, because they know how ridiculous it makes their entire view on the matter look.

Strawman:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

ex: John believes short men in green clothing planted explosives in the WTCs.
I counter with:
"John thinks that 9/11 was caused by leprachauns. Well obviously leprachauns do not exist, so John is wrong."

Now where has Pomeroo misrepresented your position on this matter? You are not claiming that thousands were involved...thats right, and he is NOT saying that you are claiming such, so it is NOT a strawman.

TAM:)

TAM:)

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 11:11 PM

Osama has popped up in a new video the jihadists are using to rally the troops:

http://kevxml2adsl.verizon.net/_1_K88TO10WCO2KB__vzn.dsl/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D8QCOOB80&qcat=news&ran=7073&feed=ap&top=1

The kind of mind that can keep talking itself into believing that the rest of the world doesn't exist and some mad Keystone Kops Konspiracy is at the bottom of everything deserves a chapter in any Abnormal Psych text.

Yoo-hoo, twoofers--the jihadists are real!

pomeroo

14th July 2007, 11:16 PM

Your argument that Pomeroo is putting forward a strawman argument is invalid.

For it to be a strawman, he would have to be setting up a weak misrepresentation of your argument, so that it could be easily refuted. His argument that a conspiracy by the USG to plot and carry out the 9/11 attacks would need to be vast and involve thousands is not far fetched or weak, but really rather quite accurate.

truthers simply despise the argument, because they know how ridiculous it makes their entire view on the matter look.

Great point, TAM!

Strawman:

ex: John believes short men in green clothing planted explosives in the WTCs.
I counter with:
"John thinks that 9/11 was caused by leprachauns. Well obviously leprachauns do not exist, so John is wrong."

Now where has Pomeroo misrepresented your position on this matter? You are not claiming that thousands were involved...thats right, and he is NOT saying that you are claiming such, so it is NOT a strawman.

TAM:)

TAM:)

It is precisely the fact that he is not acknowledging that his imaginary conspiracy would necessarily involve thousands that I'm criticizing.

TruthSeeker1234

14th July 2007, 11:51 PM

You're talking about videos that were actually broadcast on 9/11, right? By what definition of the word can this be described as keeping them "secret"?

Secret as in hidden, unavailable. Videos broadcast on 9/11 would have been recorded on VHS. VHS is not broadcast quality. Presumably the broadcast archives would have been recorded on 3/4 inch tape, which has considerably greater horizontal resolution than 1/2 inch VHS. VHS tapes must then be digitized for distribution on the internet, which may involve compression. This provides a plausible sounding excuse for "anomalies". If uploaded to YouTube, the resolution is reduced, and the compression is drastic. The plausibility of "anomalies" increases.

Dave, I believe I've shown that the margin of error involved in the relatively hi-resolution Chopper 5 copy is too low to account for the velocity problems. But whatever the margin of error, it must be improved by analyzing a better copy. Thus the interest of science would be served by the release of higher quality copies. The interest of science is currently being subverted, because the networks are keeping them secret.

I think, in this case, you and Ron Wieck are using slightly different definitions of the word. Ron is referring to something that might better be referred to as a "guilty secret", the idea that many people are aware that they are accessories to a monstrously immoral act which will prompt at least some of them (via guilty consciences) to admit in some way that the act took place. You are referring, instead, to the keeping of specific information that, to the people keeping it confidential, has no moral stigma attached. I seriously doubt that any television news employees feel that their actions in recording the events of 9/11 were immoral, so what is there for them to confess?

I note that you may claim otherwise, but in doing so you would be assuming the conclusion that you are trying to prove

Dave

I'm not assuming the conclusion. You're the one who is climbing inside the heads of these people, claiming to know their conscience, not me. You may well be right that most of the work-a-day media guys are unaware, they haven't studied the videos. They are just following orders to not license them. BTW, the Chopper 5 video was released on a FOX web archive with a completely different video edit, although identical audio. It didn't show Pinocchio's nose at all. Suspicious, no?

Whatever the reason, the broadcast quality videos are being kept secret. Unavailable. Not get-able. Off limits. Verbotten. Lost. Gone. The same strategies can be used to keep all the other aspects of 9/11 secret, as needed.

Dave, you're a scientist. I'd say focus on studying what happened, (things you can measure), and stay out of people's heads. The least you could do, if you are intellectually honest, is admit that the interest of scientific research would be furthered by the release of the videos, and is hindered by their continued secrecy.

TruthSeeker1234

14th July 2007, 11:57 PM

Have you tried contacting the news networks of other nations in your quest? Has the fact that other nations have media too even crossed your mind?

Oh, yes. The BBC now claims that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos. Do you believe them? I don't. They began saying this the day after we found the BBC broadcast where the anchor guy + Jane Standley were discussing the collapse of WTC7, and even the cause of the collapse of WTC7, a good half hour before it actually happened.

Suspicious, no?

The Doc

15th July 2007, 12:07 AM

pomeroo

15th July 2007, 12:19 AM

TruthSeeker1234

15th July 2007, 12:36 AM

Said Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM:

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

So, The Doc, you got 12 hours from them, including the Jane Standley psychic prediction. Hmmmm. What format? Any planes or spires?

Just asking . . .

Travis

15th July 2007, 12:45 AM

Truthers, and only Truthers, find the WTC7 goof by the BBC suspicious.

Let see, a skyscraper with an out of control fire, the same day two other skyscrapers have submitted to out of control fires, that's been evacuated for hours and had it's collapse stated as imminent by the FDNY, is reported to have collapsed by a newscaster when in fact it hadn't yet. Surely this must be part of a plot and not just an honest mistake. Yeah, that makes sense.

Firestone

15th July 2007, 02:10 AM

Oh, yes. The BBC now claims that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos. Do you believe them? I don't. They began saying this the day after we found the BBC broadcast where the anchor guy + Jane Standley were discussing the collapse of WTC7, and even the cause of the collapse of WTC7, a good half hour before it actually happened.

Suspicious, no?Well, no.
The BBC doesn't claim "that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos".
The BBC does claim that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos from BBC World Service. The tapes from BBC News 24 for example are not lost.

Said Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM:

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.htmlI love quote-mining!

The very next sentence in your source reads:
We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.So, TruthSeeker1234, why don't you try to get hold of these tapes and prove your point?
And don't forget the many other European broadcasters in your quest.

Liszt

15th July 2007, 08:43 AM

Well, my truther friends?

lol you do realise that JREF is a skeptic forum? Would you go to LC forum and post a question for the skeptics? Why not post this question here

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/index.php

Alt+F4

15th July 2007, 09:02 AM

There are currently about 30,000 people in the NSA. What are they doing right now?

Ron, you don't know. Do you know why you don't know? Because it's a freaking secret, that's why.

The NSA has been in operation for decades. What were they doing in 1987? 1994? Ditto the secret service. Ditto the CIA. Ditto military black ops.

How about some facts to back this up?

On occassion, when someone post a great reply I save it. My apology to the forum person who orginally wrote this (I can't remember who), but it's an appropriate response to this garbage:

According to the CTers, "Black Ops" guys are everywhere, omnipotent, able to violate every law in the book, including laws of physics, chemistry, gravity, and common-sense. They have "licenses to kill," unlimited sources of funding and logistics, complete knowledge of every aspect of the planet, from metallurgy to religion, fanatical loyalty and obedience to their immediate chain of command, and not the slightest scruple of morality about murder, assassination, committing atrocities, or betraying fellow countrymen.

TruthSeeker1234

15th July 2007, 09:42 AM

TruthSeeker1234

15th July 2007, 09:48 AM

So, The Doc, did your 12 hours include any planes or spire? What format were they in?

Alt+F4

15th July 2007, 10:01 AM

So Alt+F4 is implying the NSA doesn't exist, or something. We can't really tell much from her post, except that she want very much to disagree with me. I believe this is the same Alt+F4 who claims to have seen UA175 crash into the south face of the south tower, despite being north of the WTC.

Does Dr. Judy's orbiting microwave oven do toast too, like English muffins and Poptarts?

Learn to read, where did I say that the NSA doesn't exist?

I'm sure your wacky theory believes that no one north of say, Liberty Street saw the second crash, whatever, I could care less of what you think of my experiences. You have no power to influence anyone in the real world and I do. You lose.

TruthSeeker1234

15th July 2007, 10:01 AM

A reconstruction of the anonymous quote on black ops.

According to Ace Baker, "Black Ops" guys are everywhere they need to be, potent, allowed to violate every legislated law in the book. They, like everyone else, are constrained by the laws of nature. They have "licenses to kill," large sources of funding and logistics, highly specialized knowledge, from metallurgy to religion, fanatical loyalty and obedience to their immediate chain of command, and not the slightest scruple of morality about murder, assassination, committing atrocities, or betraying fellow countrymen.

I'll defend that statement, now stripped of straw.

TruthSeeker1234

15th July 2007, 10:05 AM

Learn to read, where did I say that the NSA doesn't exist?

I said you implied it. I said the NSA has 30,000 employees, and that nobody knows what they do, and that this has been going on for decades.

In response, you asked me for "facts". Those are facts. If you disagree that those are facts, then you should state which part(s) you disagree with.

T.A.M.

15th July 2007, 10:22 AM

Here is a request I have for the truthers out there.

Now the prevailing (sorry ACE) theory out there, on the planes hitting the twin towers, is that they were remote controlled military planes, perhaps done up to look like civilian jet airliners.

So what I want is not proof that the technology existed, or proof that the govt had looked at it, or tested it...blah blah blah.

What I want is one reliable piece of evidence that proves that the planes AA11 and UA175 were remote controlled military aircraft.

While you are looking for this grail of trutherism, have a look at this article.

http://wasearch.loc.gov/sep11/20011121132816/http://cbsnews.com/earlyshow/healthwatch/healthnews/20010912terror_ogonowski.shtml

TAM:)

TruthSeeker1234

15th July 2007, 10:25 AM

T.A.M. wants people to go look for evidence that the cartoon planes were real. Pretty safe bet nobody's going to find much, unless the spooks plant something to lead researchers astray.

T.A.M.

15th July 2007, 10:35 AM

ok ACE, provide me with proof that no-planes hit the WTCs. The only proof I will accept as valid, is a statement created by and signed by a RECOGNIZED (by his peers in the field) VIDEO ANALYSIS EXPERT, that states that the videos we see of the planes hitting the twin towers are faked, along with confessions from those who witnessed the planes hitting the towers, admitting they were lieing.

TAM:)

Corsair 115

15th July 2007, 02:39 PM

Oh, yes. The BBC now claims that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos.So you contacted one news organization outside the United States? That's it? One news agency from one country out of the list of twenty countries I provided? Ever hear of the CBC? CTV? Global? They're much closer to you than Britain is.

Have you read up on special effects yet? Can you now tell me what a travelling matte is? How about a matte painting? What's front screen projection? How does the foreground miniature effect work?

pomeroo

15th July 2007, 04:04 PM

A reconstruction of the anonymous quote on black ops.

According to Ace Baker,

I'll defend that statement, now stripped of straw.

But you won't defend your absurd belief in a mathematically-impossible conspiracy.
You won't explain away thousands of eyewitnesses who watched an airliner crash into a building.
You won't tell us how the imaginary Bush/Cheney crime family got hold of a futuristic super-weapon that is not available to the military.
You won't tell us how the Navy built a ship with your "dustified" steel.

And you sure as hell won't tell us why absolutely no media outlet anywhere in the world is interested in your fantasies.

You're a very silly guy, Ace.

pomeroo

15th July 2007, 04:11 PM

T.A.M. wants people to go look for evidence that the cartoon planes were real. Pretty safe bet nobody's going to find much, unless the spooks plant something to lead researchers astray.

All rational members of this forum want Ace to tell us what thousands of people looking at the South Tower from the street and their office windows were really seeing when they claimed to see an airliner crashing into the building.

Were they lying? Were they victims of a fantastic techno-hoax? Were they suffering a mass-hallucination? Did they fail to distinguish a commercial airliner from, say, a pigeon?

Tell us, Ace, what these people saw. If you claim that they were pointing at the sky and screaming in horror because they were looking at nothing, I'm afraid we will continue to question your sanity.

Regnad Kcin

15th July 2007, 09:37 PM

lol you do realise that JREF is a skeptic forum?Er, yes. However, it is not exclusive. The JREF promotes and encourages critical thinking on all manner of topics. That does not mean that everyone who posts here is or need be a "skeptic."

Furthermore, this forum continues to be visited by believers in some manner of "inside job" with regard to 9/11 (you'll note Revolutionary91 and TruthSeeker1234 both posting in the thread), not to mention an unknown number of lurkers. So my original question is for any or all of them who might care to tackle it.

Would you go to LC forum and post a question for the skeptics?The LC forum is notorious for its extreme exclusionary tactics. If they were an open forum, I might. As it stands, I won't.

Why not post this question here

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/index.phpI prefer to spend what online time I have right here -- a generally civil and lively place where critical thinking and evidence are celebrated.

Regnad Kcin

15th July 2007, 09:41 PM

So no answer to the OP question, trutheteers? Rather go off-topic instead thinking no one would notice? I suspected as much, but to see it so blatantly demonstrated...

Pardalis

15th July 2007, 10:36 PM

I think it's because we just don't have the finest of the truther crop these days Regnad... I mean Ace is in his own world, I just don't get Liszt, Revolutionary91 is just a kid and I don't think we can ever get a straight answer from Apollo.

Belz...

16th July 2007, 05:33 AM

I like the way the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy operates.

They blow up a building that has no conceivable connection to their evil plan to start wars with Afghanistan and Iraq...

They do it just to leave clues for really stupid young guys...

Their purpose in starting the wars is to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, which would be a terrible thing although nobody can begin to guess why, and steal oil from Iraq...

No pipeline is being built or is even being contemplated;
No Iraqi oil has been, or will be, stolen...

They promise to find WMD in Iraq, realizing that if they fail to do so, they will be eviscerated by the political opposition and its media auxiliaries...

They know full well that won't find any weapons, but they invade anyway...

They somehow "forget" to plant the weapons they now desperately need to find...

They come within a whisker of losing the presidential election to a man who would have been reckoned, by once-conventional standards, unelectable...

They stage a "false flag" attack in Madrid that leads to the ouster of one of the few governments friendly to their goals...

They stage another one in London that shakes the resolve of their staunchest ally...

They neglect to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden, a CIA-asset who doesn't even exist, in time to prevent a crushing mid-term election defeat that strips them of most of their power...

Uh, unless you're living in an Ace-Baker dreamworld, where are the accomplishments? A mathematically-impossible conspiracy consisting of thousands of perps and accomplices, operating with an unlimited budget, and they have succeeded over a period of six years in sweeping their party out of control of both houses of Congress and transforming it into a minority party for the forseeable future.

Is there something we're missing?

That's a good summary, and Rev's "straw man" accusation is a farce. That's exactly what had to happen for all these "clues" to exist.

The impossibly vast conspiracy is simultaneously extremely competent and extremely dumb.

Incidentally, none of the points I raised were straw men.

That's because truthers don't know what straw men are. Or ad hominems, in fact.

Belz...

16th July 2007, 05:42 AM

The vastness of the conspiracy is an interesting question. I have an in-law who is an architect. He flat refuses to discuss 9/11. He will not look at the videos and pictures. He knows the towers were blown up, but he looks the other way.

If he refuses to discuss it, how do you know wthat he "knows" ?

Or are you simply speculating ? Think about this other thing you said:

You're the one who is climbing inside the heads of these people, claiming to know their conscience, not me.

Ok, next...

Mathematically impossible for people to keep secrets? LOL.

There are currently about 30,000 people in the NSA. What are they doing right now?

Apples and oranges. They're not covering up the illegal murder of 3000 of their own countrymen, are they ?

Let's take a provable example, of great current interest to me - the behavior of the news media people. As you know, I would very much like to get broadcast quality copies of 9/11 videos.

I thought you were content with analysing abysmal-quality videos ?

Belz...

16th July 2007, 05:44 AM

Your points are ridiculous. Your strawman is that the conspiracy is vast and contains thousands of people. We aren't claiming that.

That doesn't matter. In order for this conspiracy to even be possible, it HAS TO involve thousands of people, all around the world; people who don't have any reason to cover for it.

Belz...

16th July 2007, 05:46 AM

T.A.M. wants people to go look for evidence that the cartoon planes were real. Pretty safe bet nobody's going to find much, unless the spooks plant something to lead researchers astray.

Nice work shutting yourself from any evidence. You can claim that there is no evidence, until such evidence is shown, at which point you can claim that the evidence was planted.

What a beautiful, unassailable tower you've built yourself.

Liszt

16th July 2007, 07:41 AM

Er, yes. However, it is not exclusive. The JREF promotes and encourages critical thinking on all manner of topics. That does not mean that everyone who posts here is or need be a "skeptic."

Furthermore, this forum continues to be visited by believers in some manner of "inside job" with regard to 9/11 (you'll note Revolutionary91 and TruthSeeker1234 both posting in the thread), not to mention an unknown number of lurkers. So my original question is for any or all of them who might care to tackle it.

The LC forum is notorious for its extreme exclusionary tactics. If they were an open forum, I might. As it stands, I won't.

I prefer to spend what online time I have right here -- a generally civil and lively place where critical thinking and evidence are celebrated.

with hindsight, you are right and I´m wrong. This is an interesting thread. And I thought all that "no planes" stuff was a strawman made up by debunkers ;)

But Pardallis is right, you guys are mostly shooting fish in a barrel, which is why I´d like to see a bit of a ruck with the anti-neocon boys.

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 07:50 AM

with hindsight, you are right and I´m wrong. This is an interesting thread. And I thought all that "no planes" stuff was a strawman made up by debunkers ;)

But Pardallis is right, you guys are mostly shooting fish in a barrel, which is why I´d like to see a bit of a ruck with the anti-neocon boys.

1. what is "ruck".
2. You seem to think that we are neo-con protectors or excuse makers. I have talked about this before, and if you have read my thoughts on this, you will know, that by far, the majority of people here who consider themselves 9/11 truth debunkers, are actually opposed to the Neo-cons. Being a debunker of the nonsense and junkie pseudoscience that is 9/11 truth does not make one a defender of the neo-con's and their principles. It is about wanting concrete evidence and strong science and physical evidence before one condemns innocents (until PROVEN guilty) of the murders of 3000 people. As of todays date, in my opinion the OVERWHELMING evidence proves the 19 arab hijackers were responsible for the attacks.

TAM:)

Liszt

16th July 2007, 07:57 AM

1. what is "ruck".
2. You seem to think that we are neo-con protectors or excuse makers. I have talked about this before, and if you have read my thoughts on this, you will know, that by far, the majority of people here who consider themselves 9/11 truth debunkers, are actually opposed to the Neo-cons. Being a debunker of the nonsense and junkie pseudoscience that is 9/11 truth does not make one a defender of the neo-con's and their principles. It is about wanting concrete evidence and strong science and physical evidence before one condemns innocents (until PROVEN guilty) of the murders of 3000 people. As of todays date, in my opinion the OVERWHELMING evidence proves the 19 arab hijackers were responsible for the attacks.

TAM:)

ruck = fight, it´s a UK rugby term (i think...you never know when someone will say "actually, the term was invented in 1745 by..."!)

I´m talking about 911 debunking, the anti-neocons just happens to be the name of the site, and I know you too are an "anti neocon". I´ve already said this, TAM!

Most intelligent 911 CTs only talk about LIHOP (intel agencies, PROMIS software, that sort of stuff.) The JREF seems to attract extreme CTists, for some reason. No planes indeed!

T.A.M.

16th July 2007, 08:07 AM

I played rugby in highschool. Now that you mention it, I can see how it fits, but I have never seen it used in such a sentence. I would have used scrum.

lol...ok, I thought it was you I was discussing it with, but I wasnt sure...sorry bout that. Well for those who do not know, the anti-neocon site has alot of 9/11 truthers there, I assume, and hence perhaps would make more serious adversaries to debate for us. Well we both know where the other is, so if they wish to debate they can come over, or those interested can go over there.

LIHOP is a more "sensible" approach. Though it is easier to believe as a possibility, it still has little CONCRETE evidence to back it up. There are co-incidences, yes, as one would expect in a complex multi-pronged attack, such as 9/11, and there is some evidence that incompetence MAY have occured, and still other evidence that VAGUE warnings were put on the back burner or ignored. All that said, I do not think the case for LIHOP is strong by any stretch.

BUSH and CHENEY are likely guilty of many things, but I have seen no evidence that allowing 9/11 to happen deliberately, is one of them.

TAM:)

Revolutionary91

16th July 2007, 08:15 AM

ruck = fight, it´s a UK rugby term (i think...you never know when someone will say "actually, the term was invented in 1745 by..."!)

I´m talking about 911 debunking, the anti-neocons just happens to be the name of the site, and I know you too are an "anti neocon". I´ve already said this, TAM!

Most intelligent 911 CTs only talk about LIHOP (intel agencies, PROMIS software, that sort of stuff.) The JREF seems to attract extreme CTists, for some reason. No planes indeed!

I think we need a thread here on the PROMIS software and indira singh. I never see it addressed.

I too am sick of the no plane space beam type stuff. I'm not even totally convinced on demolition.

I was dismayed the other day when I heard a 2004 interview with Jim Hoffman. I thought he was one of the most credible people but he believes a ground based mazer with a 8 inch copper cable used microwave interferometry to bring down the towers, powered by super capacitors in wtc7.

Liszt

16th July 2007, 08:25 AM

Belz...

16th July 2007, 10:22 AM

with hindsight, you are right and I´m wrong. This is an interesting thread. And I thought all that "no planes" stuff was a strawman made up by debunkers ;)

Oh, no. Ace quite eloquently shows this belief to be false.

But Pardallis is right, you guys are mostly shooting fish in a barrel, which is why I´d like to see a bit of a ruck with the anti-neocon boys.

What the hell's a damn "neocon" anyway ?

Liszt

16th July 2007, 10:38 AM

What the hell's a damn "neocon" anyway ?

seriously?

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

but normally it means the PNAC crowd. Actually, I think a better name is NeoLiberal. Richarl Pearl is normally considered to be their "leader". A lot of it is based on the economics that came out of Cicago Uni in the 70s and 80s, Schultz style. Greg Palast´s 1st book has some on their creation.

Belz...

16th July 2007, 01:06 PM

So it's just another useless people-label. Got it.

pomeroo

16th July 2007, 04:37 PM

Oh, no. Ace quite eloquently shows this belief to be false.

What the hell's a damn "neocon" anyway ?

There are two essential neocon insights. The first is that an American foreign policy that is content to prop up corrupt Middle Eastern plutocrats has to be changed. Democracy must be promoted as the only long-term hope for stability in that benighted region. Jihadism offers a vision, and visions can be countered effectively only by competing visions. The second insight holds that only a strong American military can protect the world from the apocalyptic threat of nuclear proliferation and the more immediate threat of acquistion of chemical and biological weapons by rogue states and stateless entities like al Qaeda.

Someone--I wish I knew who--wrote that any sentence written by a blogger that contains the word "neocon" is almost certain to be utter nonsense. That wisdom, of course, does not apply to any sentence written by moi!

Alt+F4

16th July 2007, 04:48 PM

Revolutionary91 is just a kid

By his own admission at the LCF, Rev91 was 9 years old when 9/11 happened. His mommy cried but he got the day off from school!

After reading his postings at the LCF, Rev91 deserves all the criticism he gets here.

Ignore away pretentious teen.

pomeroo

16th July 2007, 04:48 PM

seriously?

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

but normally it means the PNAC crowd. Actually, I think a better name is NeoLiberal. Richarl Pearl is normally considered to be their "leader". A lot of it is based on the economics that came out of Cicago Uni in the 70s and 80s, Schultz style. Greg Palast´s 1st book has some on their creation.

This is not correct. Neoconservatism was born in the late seventies. Initially, it was a response to the perceived weakness of the Democratic Party on national security matters, a weakness that resulted from the McGovernite takeover of the party in the early seventies. Several leading lights of the NYC-based liberal, Jewish literary elite, most conspicuously Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, joined with the "Scoop Jackson" Democrats to decry the dangers inherent in Jimmy Carter's foreign policy. Economics had very little to do with the neoconservative critique. Most neocons were big-government liberals, and that fact explains the hostility of traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan to neocon policies.

negativ

16th July 2007, 04:48 PM

Remember folks, everyone on the planet is part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. EVERYONE.

Except Ace of course.

.... UNLESS Ace is a Bob Arctor / Agent Fred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_scanner_darkly) type. He could be IN ON IT and not even know it.

pomeroo

16th July 2007, 04:57 PM

By his own admission at the LCF, Rev91 was 9 years old when 9/11 happened. His mommy cried but he got the day off from school!

After reading his postings at the LCF, Rev91 deserves all the criticism he gets here.

Ignore away pretentious teen.

I am willing to revise my harsh judgment if future developments indicate a growing maturity. Rev91 is suggesting that he may be capable of critical thinking. His silence on the subject indicates that he is beginning to understand how absurd the belief in a mathematically-impossible conspiracy really is. Hopeless, ineducable dunces like Ace Baker and Malcolm Kirkman would mindlessly blather away, but I suspect that Rev has found food for thought. When actual thinking is going on, there is always hope.

Civilized Worm

16th July 2007, 05:15 PM

Rev91, are there any incidents that you believe to be genuine terrorist attacks?

I too am sick of the no plane space beam type stuff. I'm not even totally convinced on demolition.

Maybe there's hope for you after all!

Alt+F4

16th July 2007, 05:24 PM

I am willing to revise my harsh judgment if future developments indicate a growing maturity. Rev91 is suggesting that he may be capable of critical thinking. His silence on the subject indicates that he is beginning to understand how absurd the belief in a mathematically-impossible conspiracy really is.

Ron, I commend your optimism, but don't share it after reading Rev91's postings at the LCF and here. If he wants to post with the adults then he is subject to the same criticism I give to anyone who gets their 9/11 information through the Internet exclusively, his age only makes this more evident.

NDBoston

16th July 2007, 05:40 PM

I think we need a thread here on the PROMIS software and indira singh. I never see it .

I know Inidira. She headed the ODG (Object Development Group) in NYC back in the late 90's.

She is bright but WAY out there. She isn't the type of person you want representing the truthers.

Feel free to bring her up though. IT will be good for a laugh.

William Rea

21st July 2007, 04:04 PM

I played rugby in highschool. Now that you mention it, I can see how it fits, but I have never seen it used in such a sentence. I would have used scrum...snip...

"Ruck" is very commonly used in the UK as a term for a fight. I think it is preferred over "maul" and "scrum" because both of those imply controlled aggression whereas "rucks" appear to be a free for all (provided you don't go in from the side and don't use your feet and a million other infringements!).

I have seen "Scrum" used more commonly as slang for a meeting as in "let's have a scrum down".

Mobyseven

21st July 2007, 06:42 PM

The question is equally relevant for the OT supporters. Why haven't the suicide Jihadist, who hate our freedoms, attacked again in 6 years?

I'm sorry, I know that you were young when 9/11 happened, but some basic research would do you good.

How about the 12/10 Bali Bombing targeting Australians? How about Madrid and London? Tell me you were kidding with that statement!

aimforthehead

22nd July 2007, 12:36 AM

Corsair 115

22nd July 2007, 12:45 AM

There really isn't a need, if the conspiracy theorists are correct. They aren't. They're wrong about 9/11, they're wrong about TWA 800 being shot down by a missile, they're wrong about the lunar landings being faked, they're wrong about chemtrails. Etcetera.

Soon, the guns would be banned. In the U.S? What, the NRA is just going to quietly acquiesce to such a law? Somehow I find that extremely unlikely.

For that matter, even countries with gun control laws don't forbid weapons outright. Canada has gun control laws, for example, but it is still perfectly legal to own a firearm. Granted, you do have some extra work to do in order to purchase one, but the point is you still can.

The Real ID card... Canada would be perfectly happy to go back to the old requirements of a driver's license and one other piece of ID to cross the border into the U.S. But since the U.S. is insisting on something more stringent in terms of ID, passports have become the preferred method. However, passports are somewhat expensive and somewhat of a hassle to get, so something easier to get than a passport but more secure than a typical license would be preferrable. Hence, you get proposals like certain secure ID cards.

If you'd like to petition the U.S. government to restore the old rules in regards to crossing the U.S.-Canadian border, I can assure you businesses and individuals who cross that border would be quite happy with such a petition.

Belz...

23rd July 2007, 08:08 AM

There really isn't a need, if the conspiracy theorists are correct.

They can barely get 2+2 right, so no.

You're using intuition, not logic.

Pots and kettles are flying about.

Soon, the guns would be banned.

I should hope so, but no.

just because your personal life isn't effected much doesn't mean the rest of the world lives perfect and free.

That's not an argument.

RedIbis

23rd July 2007, 09:03 AM

Alright, more like several:

Where, oh where over the past 6 years has been the follow-up attack? You know, considering your contention that 9/11 was orchestrated by a veritable A-Team of people who orchestrated one of the most heinous attacks (committed in broad daylight and in front of millions, let's remember) in order to further their nefarious goals of national domination, whazzup?

Prior to the 2000 presidential elections might've been nice, so as to ensure Mr. Bush's re-election.

Or how 'bouts leading up to the 2006 mid-terms, that the Republican party would not risk what turned out to be defeat in the House and Senate?

Maybe now would be super-best, considering the Iraq war is draining the life blood out of the Rs, not to mention King George is enjoying (proud of it too, I'll bet) dismally dismal approval ratings?

So what of it, "Truth Squadroneers?" They so blithely and greedily crashed airplanes, killed thousands, destroyed numerous landmarks, played havoc with the economy, and...gave rise to you guys. If what you say is true, where has been the follow up?

I don't mind answering this question or questions, even at the risk of being labelled a "twoofer." I will say this kind of response seems counter to an intellectual debate, and suffers from the ad hominem logical fallacy.

Also, I'd hope Reg will answer my follow up question. Thanks.

IF 9/11 is an inside job, it's not hard to speculate why there have not been additional attacks. IF 9/11 is an inside job, the planners likely envisioned a ten year plan, perhaps, starting with an enormous and catastrophic event that would keep the population in a state of fear while all foreign policy goals are being met (read: war), until the end of the decade.

Obviously, orchestrating such an event is a tremendous risk and not something that is likely to be repeated. However, it would be necessary to perpetuate a series of "reminders."

It would also be possible that plans are on the table for another event, if necessary.

Now, if you don't mind answering the reverse of your question:

If 9/11 was not an inside job, then it exposed the US intelligence community, national security agencies, and the entire military as catastrophically inept. The entire system allowed four airliners to be hijacked by 19 Arabs, including four marginal pilots, to fly around for an hour and a half in the most protected airspace in the known world, into economically crucial targets, and the center of our military.

So why hasn't Al Qaeda struck again? If it's possible to strike the Pentagon, how hard would it be to mess with water supplies, food supplies, medicines, agriculture, more hijackings, chemical and nuclear plant security breaches?

We're told that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, they're everywhere, and our security hasn't improved all that much. It's still very easy to sneak dangerous materials through our airports and ports.

Does Al Qaeda not know that the Mexican and Canadian borders are wide open?

Belz...

23rd July 2007, 10:31 AM

What's that I see ? A mountain of strawmen!!!

IF 9/11 is an inside job, it's not hard to speculate why there have not been additional attacks. IF 9/11 is an inside job, the planners likely envisioned a ten year plan, perhaps, starting with an enormous and catastrophic event that would keep the population in a state of fear while all foreign policy goals are being met (read: war), until the end of the decade.

While we're speculating, let's get Ming the Merciless into this, shall we ?

Obviously, orchestrating such an event is a tremendous risk and not something that is likely to be repeated.

Actually, that conspiracy theory has the conspirators commiting a crime so large, so physically, psychologically or economically impossible that the "tremendous risk" becomes an overwhelming one.

On the one hand, the perpetrators were so competent as to defy the very laws of logic and physics to reach their goals.

On the other hand, they were so inept that they left "obvious" clues to expose their crime.

But then, only the Truthers, who are, by admission, not knowledgeable in the various scientific aspects of the event, can spot these clues.

Do you smell something fishy, here ?

It would also be possible that plans are on the table for another event, if necessary.

And it would be a whole, whole lot simpler, inside-job-wise, to simply LET the attack occur or MAKE it occur, rather than orchestrate such a ridiculous plan.

If 9/11 was not an inside job, then it exposed the US intelligence community, national security agencies, and the entire military as catastrophically inept.

That's a gross exaggeration. It exposed them as ill-prepared to deal with a type of attack that had never occured before.

The entire system allowed four airliners to be hijacked by 19 Arabs

Arabs who, I might add, are also included in the set of human beings, and who are therefore just as capable as other people. Please, continue.

including four marginal pilots

Doesn't take an ace to crash an airliner.

to fly around for an hour and a half in the most protected airspace in the known world

Continental United States is the most protected airspace ? That's odd. I was under the impression that prior to 9/11, most of the military's attention was directed overseas.

How do you protect your airspace against YOUR OWN civilian aircraft ?

So why hasn't Al Qaeda struck again?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because of those oft-mentioned liberties that US citizens supposedly lost after 9/11 ? The tighter security at airports, for example ?

If it's possible to strike the Pentagon, how hard would it be to mess with water supplies, food supplies, medicines, agriculture, more hijackings, chemical and nuclear plant security breaches?

That's an odd way to formulate an argument.

If you said: "If it was EASY to strike the Pentagon...", I'd simply have said it wasn't. But now it just doesn't make sense.

I'm sure it's quite possible to do what you claim. Hopefully, it's hard.

We're told that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, they're everywhere, and our security hasn't improved all that much.

Funny. That's what they say about the NWO, too.

It's still very easy to sneak dangerous materials through our airports and ports.

Easy ? How so ?

Does Al Qaeda not know that the Mexican and Canadian borders are wide open?

That's how they got in, actually. Maybe you should start reading and learning.

Kage

23rd July 2007, 08:26 PM

There really isn't a need, if the conspiracy theorists are correct. You're using intuition, not logic. Soon, the guns would be banned. The Real ID card, RFID chip, etc., just because your personal life isn't effected much doesn't mean the rest of the world lives perfect and free.

An aside about RFID nuttiness:

If you are worried about an RFID card from the government, do not dispair. Simply wrap the card with aluminum foil when you are not using it. Aluminum foil wont keep the mind control rays out of your head, but it will keep your RFID card from working. My school had an RFID card system for the locks on dormitories, and the card wouldn't work when held next to my ipod.

RFID tags in clothing and the like presents more of a problem, but access to an induction oven or cooking range can be used to render these tags worthless to the NWO as well.

Sorry about the derail.

Gravy

24th July 2007, 05:05 AM

I´m talking about 911 debunking, the anti-neocons just happens to be the name of the site, and I know you too are an "anti neocon". I´ve already said this, TAM! Isn't that the site run by the barely-literate anti-Semite with the crackpot ideas about 9/11, and haven't we had this discussion at least twice before? Wasn't he the guy who told you he'd destroy me in a debate, but, uh, forgot to mail the invitation?

Since your desire for the debate with the moron is unlikely to be fulfilled, I suggest you set your sights elsewhere.

8den

24th July 2007, 05:18 AM

Liszt

24th July 2007, 05:19 AM

Isn't that the site run by the barely-literate anti-Semite with the crackpot ideas about 9/11, and haven't we had this discussion at least twice before? Wasn't he the guy who told you he'd destroy me in a debate, but, uh, forgot to mail the invitation?

Since your desire for the debate with the moron is unlikely to be fulfilled, I suggest you set your sights elsewhere.

whatever happened to "attack the arguement"?

Yeah, Ryan is dyslexic, but he normally gets someone to read his posts now beforehand, to avoid the errors. It is unkind to call him "barely-literate".

I didn´t say he would destroy you in a debate - that is actually what HE said. I do not know who would win, but would pay good money to watch.

Gravy

24th July 2007, 05:28 AM

whatever happened to "attack the arguement"?

Yeah, Ryan is dyslexic, but he normally gets someone to read his posts now beforehand, to avoid the errors. It is unkind to call him "barely-literate".Okay, so he's a grown man who runs a public forum and knows he makes tons of mistakes but hasn't learned, or doesn't care, to use spell check. What would you call that behavior?

I didn´t say he would destroy you in a debate - that is actually what HE said.And that's what I said. Pay attention, please.

I do not know who would win, but would pay good money to watch.You will? You're on. How much will you pay me to debate him?

Liszt

24th July 2007, 05:41 AM

Okay, so he's a grown man who runs a public forum and knows he makes tons of mistakes but hasn't learned, or doesn't care, to use spell check. What would you call that behavior?

...

You will? You're on. How much will you pay me to debate him?

Ryan also runs his site in Japanese, and has a full time job. But yeah, you make a good point.

lol I don´t know, but whatever I´d pay would probably be swallowed up by the airfare or whatever would be needed, so you wouldn´t be making a quick buck ;)
You must admit, he´d be a better challenge, compared to that huge Fetzer chap.

Gravy

24th July 2007, 05:48 AM

Liszt

24th July 2007, 06:00 AM

No airfare. Internet debate. C'mon, how much you got? This is absolute child's play for me, and I can use some easy money. And no, he is no challenge compared to Fetzer. I spent many hours studying directed energy technologies and capabilities, memorizing phase change temperatures and energies for various metals, printing and captioning photos from Judy Wood's site, etc., etc. I didn't get to use much of that, but I was prepared to. For this Ryan guy I need no preparation. I'm ready to go now.

I´ll give you a book (signed), when it is printed. It´ll be worth a fortune at some point in the future, probably. And free guitar and piano lessons, every time you visit Germany.

I have to ask Ryan about this. Also, as a technical buffoon, actually running the debate would have to be done by someone who knows what they´re doing(i.e. not me).

Doesn´t everyone love watching debates? Especially on this forum. (I´m obsessed, to the point where party guests are warned "he´ll try and argue about something". Almost pathological). You, Gravy, are boarderline genius when it comes to 911, but I think Ryan is too.
I´m knackered, and need to go back to bed. Can someone else organize this? Seriously*, signed books and music lessons all round to people who help.

*not seriously

Rich M

24th July 2007, 06:13 AM

those are terrible prizes. Stump up the cash, tightwad.

Gravy

24th July 2007, 06:14 AM

I´ll give you a book (signed), when it is printed. It´ll be worth a fortune at some point in the future, probably. And free guitar and piano lessons, every time you visit Germany.

I have to ask Ryan about this. Also, as a technical buffoon, actually running the debate would have to be done by someone who knows what they´re doing(i.e. not me).

Doesn´t everyone love watching debates? Especially on this forum. (I´m obsessed, to the point where party guests are warned "he´ll try and argue about something". Almost pathological). You, Gravy, are boarderline genius when it comes to 911, but I think Ryan is too.
I´m knackered, and need to go back to bed. Can someone else organize this? Seriously*, signed books and music lessons all round to people who help.

*not seriouslyAh, well. I appreciate the comment about 9/11, but genius has absolutely nothing to do with it. I possess average intelligence. I've simply had the time and the inclination to read up.

Since the offer of signed books and music lessons, however nice it may be, probably will not a debate make, I'll throw out these 9/11-related excerpts from Ryan's website, and the regulars here will know exactly what type of runny cheese it is, and why it's so laughable. Emphasis mine.

The evidence if it was ALL being stated, especially pertaining to the war in Iraq, would land you in scenario 5.

(Scenario) 5. The Neocons Made it happen with the assistance of a foreign government, the same government where PNAC's papers were first written, and the same foregn nation who we have caught spies from who have been stealing secrets from the US about Iran, and who made up the shadow government of the OSP which is who cherry picked and fabricated the lies told about Iraq in order to start that war. The Wars in the Middle East were for separate reasons, Afghanistan was about a few pipelines as noted but more so about controlling large quantities of un-tapped uranium (a reason for both the Russian and US invasions) and secondly for controlling opium as the CIA uses drug money to fund it's off the book black operations such as the now known massive secret prison systems, (torture camps and human medical/scientific testing). Location-wise Afghanistan is coupled with other color coded revolutions to circle China and Russia with US bases and puppets, (add to that the lesser known negotiations with Japan to allow nuclear subs into the Japanese Sea [pointed at China] in exchange for moving troops from Okinawa to Guam). The main goal however, which the PNAC think tank states, is to keep the eye on the pie: Iran, which Afghanistan and Iraq both boarder. The invasion of Iraq was to solve Israel's oil crisis and stop the threat of a secular Middle East which would become a true economic player and was a threat to the aggressive state of Israel.

A lot of people have written about and shown the problems with official 911 story. There is the demolition of building number 7, which the 911 commission didn't even address, there are the firemen's reports that the fires were almost out, there are numerous reports of secondary explosions etc. Because it has been said on radio and more so because people have made films about it, many people can recite the arguments for the inside job in their sleep. But what has been hidden from you and the dots which have not been connected in any 911 films is the Israeli connection. 911 was an inside job which was part of a larger plan for perpetual war hatched in Israel. 911 and the wars in the Middle East were carefully planned attacks carried out by a faction of Zionist Neocons and the Israeli Mossad. I would like to focus more on who did it rather than just that it was done. It's crystal clear that the government's official story like their stories on everything else, is a complete lie. Who really did 911?

...Andreas von Bulow the former German Defense Minister said on the Alex Jones show April 21, 2006 that this false flag operation [911] had to be carried out by a very small group of people. Alex asked him 100? 40? He said less than that. Right after the second break (which on the QuickTime bar would be right in line with Andreas von Bulow's right ear) Alex talks about the picture getting more clear as the truth about the wars come out. He then talks about the 25 Neocons who wrote PNAC were in high positions in the DOD and white house, and Andreas von Bulow says "sure and part of them wrote the government program for Benjamin Netanyahu... ï¿½(Former Prime Minister of Israel). Alex goes on to say who could have done this? Bulow says it was not the CIA and Alex jumps in saying your talking about black ops. Then Alex says we know only a MAJOR STATE could have carried this out. Andreas says it must have been done from high up and it had to be done by a few people. Alex says would you say 100-200, AVB says less, Alex asks, "50 people?" And AVB says less. Maybe Alex can not say it was the Zionists on the air. But he sure was hinting at it.

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388