Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11

metamars said:
Wow. ... I often lament how simple-minded the so-called "debunkers" are. ...

This idiotic tendency to simplify, ...
...
Hence, as annoying as the "911 was an inside job" mantra may be, the companion meme of calling for a serious re-investigation is not only not annoying, it is essential to get to the bottom of things. Not likely to happen, but that is another matter.
Click to expand...

Your disjointed movement has the delusions not backed with facts and evidence. Your delusional movement failed at the science and now presents more failed ideas. Being simple-minded is what it takes to believe the lies your movement pushes. Next time bring evidence instead of hearsay. The idiotic tendency of the "truth" (delusion) movement is to manufacture the next bombshell/smoking gun/loaded gun failed statement. The thing that needs "re-investigation" is the cause of your movement's paranoid delusions. How do you get so excited about the tripe your movement makes up?
 
beachnut said:
Your disjointed movement has the delusions not backed with facts and evidence. Your delusional movement failed at the science and now presents more failed ideas. Being simple-minded is what it takes to believe the lies your movement pushes. Next time bring evidence instead of hearsay. The idiotic tendency of the "truth" (delusion) movement is to manufacture the next bombshell/smoking gun/loaded gun failed statement. The thing that needs "re-investigation" is the cause of your movement's paranoid delusions. How do you get so excited about the tripe your movement makes up?
Click to expand...

Wow. I forget sometimes you were SAC. That was a carpet-bombing of a post. :)
 
metamars said:
The title of that post is "It ain't necessarily so". I suggested only one of the 'permutations' (scenarios), delineated in post 181, but when you want to contradict a universal statement, all you need is 1 counter-examples. Re-read Mackey's statement, that I quoted, and notice that he emphasized the word "ANY".
Click to expand...

I took exception by other points of your posting. I totally agree that Saudi involvement not necessarily excludes US involvement in the planning or financing of the 9/11 attacks.
But again, that "something is not necessarily excluded" is a pointless statement. Chinese involvement, Russian involvement, Qatar involvement, Iranian involvement, Israeli involvement isn´t excluded, too. Who cares?


I'm not actually sure about the quality of the LaRouche paper, I give you that. The fact that it is partly based on recently declassified papers is uncontroversial, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, see here.


For that matter, how can I be sure of Sibel Edmonds' claims, unless state power is used to produce the proof, which she has assured us would be easy to do?
Click to expand...

You´re putting the card before the horse. It´s not state power, it´s Sibel Edmonds who has to provide proof, she made a claim. At least she has to substantiate her claims: Who told her, when was she told, where was she told, what exactly were/are the ties between UBL and the US – things like that. Her interview is one large whistle in the dark.


One thing I'm sure of is that investigations are iterative processes, and they depend on testing and investigating hypotheses - call them "speculations" if you like. I'm deeply distrustful of people who pretend to know what an investigation would yield, but who won't allow their minds to raise even the most obvious of questions.
Click to expand...

Um, OK. The problem is that these “most obvious questions” are not seen as “most obvious questions” by many people, and they are not seen as “most obvious questions” because you (and the whole 9/11 TM) didn´t show why they should be seen as “most obvious questions”. They are just ... questions.


Actually, they don't need to be enough. They need to be enough, together with all the other facts and reports that contradict the official tales, that have not been shown to be completely without merit.
Click to expand...

Don´t know which facts and reports you mean. Probably a topic for other threads.


Having said that, if all there was in the 911 conspiracy theory literature was Edmonds claims, given the US Congressmen who have vouched for her, that is quite enough for me to call for another investigation.
Click to expand...

Your standards of buying into something do not seem too high, but I´m glad you´re honest about that.
Let me say, if Edmonds could substantiate her claim in the way described above, and specify which documents she refers to, what the status of these documents is (intelligence reports, whistleblower notes, a US-UBL cooperation contract signed by al-Zawahiri and Reagan, whatever), that would be a good way to force me calling out for an investigation into this issue. By now, she just made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.


I defy you to find more that a handful of 911 Truthers who, if you asked them "Would you support a full re-investigation into 911, include any possible Saudi intelligence connections?", would say "no". In fact, I defy you to produce more than a handful of 911 Truther who, if you asked them, "Would you support a full re-investigation of just possible Saudi intelligence connections to 911?", would say "no".
Click to expand...

Of course, there are no such 9/11 truthers, for obvious reasons. I defy you to show me a handful of important truther webpages/videos where Saudi intelligence connections to the hijackers are presented as central to the 9/11 plot.


Ah, how am I supposed to see what's in the back of anybody's mind?
Click to expand...

Easy, by looking at the claims and questions, i.e. the webpages/movies/books.
E.g., look here or here or here or here.


Besides which, besides about 4 events in NYC, I don't hang out with 911 Truth activists. I've met quite a few people (non-activists) who don't buy the government's BS, but we didn't really discuss it much. However, I don't recall anybody mentioning the CIA.
Click to expand...

I do not think it´s significant what a few activists you personally met did or didn´t say.
Besides that (and to equally strenghten an anecdotal case), we seem to have totally different experiences. Unlike you I never met a truther in real life, just a few people who mistrusted official explanations, were unsettled about 9/11 by this or that book, were asking honest questions – no problem with all that; but I discussed with “real” truthers on three different (German) internet platforms, and when it comes to 9/11 initiators it´s all about intelligence services, especially CIA, and a fortiori in the Atta-ISI case. (If you need an example: This is a prototypic German essay on the handler issue; every truther in this country seems to love and link it.)


"pure possibilities" is your framing, not mine. Tell me, do you think Senator Leahy would describe Sibel Edmonds latest bombshell claim as a "pure possibility"?
Click to expand...

Probably not. But what does it matter? As long as there´s no evidence it´s not more than a possibility.
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
I have never seen such a pathetic reaction to the truth since the flat-earthers challenged me back in the 16th century.

I thank brave Sibel for her courage to speak the truth.

Sibel is the greatest symbol for truth since Joan of Arc.
Click to expand...


See, there's the problem. There were, of course, very few flat-earthers in the 16th century. The people who were challenging you spoke Italian, and you don't. As you couldn't understand a word they were saying, a certain amount of confusion is to be expected. Notice that nowadays people speak English to you, and you still don't understand anything.

Before you thank Sibel, shouldn't you have at least a clue as to what she's saying? When you decipher her message, be sure to fill us in.

I do like your theory that Sibel hears voices in her head. It would explain a great deal.

Hey, that blockbuster about the sooperdoopernanothermite has really set the scientific world on fire. Are Jones and his accomplices almost ready to submit their "work" to an independent lab? Oh, really? How many months did you say?
 
FineWine said:
See, there's the problem. There were, of course, very few flat-earthers in the 16th century.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Among the educated there were few, but among the uneducated and illiterate, there were many. You have been duped.
 
Galileo said:
Wrong.

Among the educated there were few, but among the uneducated and illiterate, there were many. You have been duped.
Click to expand...

Well, among the educated NOW there's only a tiny, tiny minority who believe 911 was an inside job. It's when you get to the uneducated and illiterate is where you start finding what few other truthers there are.
 
Galileo said:
Wrong.

Among the educated there were few, but among the uneducated and illiterate, there were many. You have been duped.
Click to expand...

Gutenberg i think solved that issue
you notice were all typing here
youre also arguing with people who are far from uneducated
 
Galileo said:
I have never seen such a pathetic reaction to the truth since the flat-earthers challenged me back in the 16th century.

I thank brave Sibel for her courage to speak the truth.

Sibel is the greatest symbol for truth since Joan of Arc.
Click to expand...


I have now joined the "Galileo Is A Troll Just Trying to Piss Us Off" school of thought.

 
Last edited:
jacque said:
Hi-
I am a woman and sorry if you have a problem with believing what I say but I origianly saw that document in Michael Riconosciuto's files. It was meant to be just a part of his defense in the drug case that put him in prison. We (Mike, etc) were dealing with a huge amount of information then.
I wonder where you got the copy of the document? Is it on Stew Webb's site?
Mike's documents are floating around all over the place.
I can only tell you that when I was helping with the papers (faxing, mailing, etc) and hearing all the information, I felt it was true.
Mike is an interesting guy- definitely a genius.
What is true or not----among those of us who were caught up in this, I can say with no hesitation, no one knows for sure, but a lot of the stuff was confirmed by his father, Marshall
Now gunderson's stories--that is another matter. He sure did not seem to be doing Mike no favors.
Click to expand...

do u still have these documents? how are u attached to this? i only have read about two cases where Michael Riconosciuto's files were found. carol marshall, the author of the last circle, and the canadian royal mounted police. the story goes the canadians came down and did some investigation into promis. this is some of what they said they found:


http://www.stewwebb.com/Ted Gunderson Nothing is Secret by Kelly Patricia O Meara.html

"Then," continues Seymour, "he said something that was just really out there. He stood in my dining room with a straight face and told us that ... more than one presidential administration will be exposed for their knowledge of the PROMIS software transactions. He said that high-ranking Canadian government officials may have unlawfully purchased the PROMIS software from high-ranking U.S. government officials in the Reagan/Bush administration, and he further stated that the RCMP has located numerous banks around the world that have been used by these U.S. officials to launder the money from the sale of the PROMIS software." Seymour was stunned. "First," she says, "I wondered if this guy was for real and, second, did he have something against Republicans." Just when she thought things couldn't get any weirder, "McDade detailed a December 1999 meeting at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico attended by the heads of the intelligence divisions of the U.S. [CIA], Great Britain [MI6], Israel [Mossad] and Canada [CSIS]. McDade said the topic of the discussion was UNIQUE ELEMENTS, and that during this meeting it allegedly was revealed that all four allied nations share computer systems and have for years. The meeting was called after a glitch was found in a British computer system that had caused the loss of historical case data."

McDade continued with this scenario by telling the astonished group: "The Israeli Mossad may have modified the original PROMIS modification [the first back door] so it became a two-way back door, allowing the Israelis access to top U.S. weapons secrets at Los Alamos and other classified installations. The Israelis may now possess all the nuclear secrets of the United States." According to Seymour, he concluded by saying that "the Jonathan Pollard [spy] case is insignificant by comparison to the current crisis."

i have no idea if this info is true or not but it is very interesting considering that i showed yall the mossad did have promis from gideons spies.
 
Senenmut, I have to be honest and say that I can't exactly tell where you are coming from. But, just one friendly piece of advice. Do you see the text that you quoted, the words that you are using to support your argument? Do you notice that these bits of text use capitalization, sentence structure and correct spelling? Those bits look a little more convincing than the stuff you write. Respectfully, try standard English.
 
carlitos said:
Senenmut, I have to be honest and say that I can't exactly tell where you are coming from. But, just one friendly piece of advice. Do you see the text that you quoted, the words that you are using to support your argument? Do you notice that these bits of text use capitalization, sentence structure and correct spelling? Those bits look a little more convincing than the stuff you write. Respectfully, try standard English.
Click to expand...

homer_doh.png
 
carlitos said:
Senenmut, I have to be honest and say that I can't exactly tell where you are coming from. But, just one friendly piece of advice. Do you see the text that you quoted, the words that you are using to support your argument? Do you notice that these bits of text use capitalization, sentence structure and correct spelling? Those bits look a little more convincing than the stuff you write. Respectfully, try standard English.
Click to expand...

I don't know what is it with these folk. I have to ignore red letters to post misspelled words. How can you spread the truth if you do not communicate?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom