What has the truth movement actually gotten right?

cornsail said:
Another relevant piece of information:

Prior to invading Afghanistan, the Bush administration demanded that the Taliban "hand over Bin Laden" for the attack of 9/11. The Taliban responded that they would apprehend Bin Laden if we offered them some evidence that he was actually involved in the crime. They extended this offer twice during the buildup to the war. The Bush administration refused both times and demanded that he be handed over without evidence. Then we invaded.
Click to expand...


Right before the bombings started, the Taliban said they would try him in Afghanistan in Islamic court. Hardly acceptable. Hence the bombings began. Never did they say that they would hand him over to the US.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Right before the bombings started, the Taliban said they would try him in Afghanistan in Islamic court. Hardly acceptable. Hence the bombings began. Never did they say that they would hand him over to the US.
Click to expand...

Who do the truthers think told us where he was? The CIA? The UK? The USA gov? or was it members of theTaliban and Afghan gov? Why did we attack Tora Bora?
 
dtugg said:
Right before the bombings started, the Taliban said they would try him in Afghanistan in Islamic court. Hardly acceptable. Hence the bombings began. Never did they say that they would hand him over to the US.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, they did not say they would try him in Afghanistian, they said they would hand him over to a court in another Islamic country. They also said they were willing to negotiate. Turkey is an Islamic country and is our ally, is it not? So is Saudi Arabia, who's government is the sworn enemy of Bin Laden.

The point is, the Bush admin. showed no desire to provide any evidence for their accusations. In the context of their claims about WMDs and nuclear programs in Iraq, that occurred afterward, this just adds to reasons to be suspicious of whether they actually had much evidence in the first place.
 
cornsail said:
If I recall correctly, they did not say they would try him in Afghanistian, they said they would hand him over to a court in another Islamic country. They also said they were willing to negotiate. Turkey is an Islamic country and is our ally, is it not? So is Saudi Arabia, who's government is the sworn enemy of Bin Laden.

The point is, the Bush admin. showed no desire to provide any evidence for their accusations. In the context of their claims about WMDs and nuclear programs in Iraq, that occurred afterward, this just adds to reasons to be suspicious of whether they actually had much evidence in the first place.
Click to expand...

I've always suspected that the evidence was solid but based on NSA signals intelligence that we would never discuss in public, at least in 2001.

The PBS Nova show about 9/11 and the NSA is very good and gives an idea about how we got the goods on ObL and KSM.

It's based on the book Spy Factory by Bamford which goes into more detail and is even better.
 
cornsail said:
If I recall correctly, they did not say they would try him in Afghanistian, they said they would hand him over to a court in another Islamic country. They also said they were willing to negotiate. Turkey is an Islamic country and is our ally, is it not? So is Saudi Arabia, who's government is the sworn enemy of Bin Laden.

The point is, the Bush admin. showed no desire to provide any evidence for their accusations. In the context of their claims about WMDs and nuclear programs in Iraq, that occurred afterward, this just adds to reasons to be suspicious of whether they actually had much evidence in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, before the bombings started they said they would try him in Afghanistan. After, they said they would be willing to him hand him over for trial in a third country. Both of those were completely unacceptable answers. Why the hell should he be tried in Afghanistan or Turkey or Saudi Arabia for crimes that happened in the United States and killed mostly US citizens? I doubt they would have actually done that anyway, most likely they were just stalling for time. If they actually cared about preventing their crappy country from being invaded they would have done what they were told. It's not like they were in a position to negotiate.
 
"What has the truth movement actually gotten right?"

Well, as a truther...

1) Proved that the AAL77 FDR NTSB data was missing 4-6 seconds of data in the released outputs.
2) Established the full radar flight path for AAL77.

Please don't confuse P4T/CIT with the "truth movement". Rational truthers have fought them tooth-and-nail on their nonsense.
 
It appears that we've just been Oxymoroned into submission, folks.
 
BCR said:
Well, as a truther...

1) Proved that the AAL77 FDR NTSB data was missing 4-6 seconds of data in the released outputs.
2) Established the full radar flight path for AAL77.
Click to expand...

One of the things I've noticed is that truthers can often debunk other truthers very effectively. Judy Wood has argued against explosives or thermite. Steven Jones pointed out that the WTC concrete was not pulverised into dust (something we already knew, but which he used to argue against explosives). And yet, somehow, there's a disconnect of some sort still there; a classic example is Jim Hoffman, who argued that flight 77 must have hit the Pentagon, yet also argued that a missile was fired from beneath the Pentagon lawn so as to blow the tail off the plane just before impact, for no other reason than to create contradictory evidence that would make theorists believe that no plane had hit the Pentagon and hence discredit themselves. Those of us who can see the holes in all the conspiracy theories, not just the other conspiracy theories, find this very perplexing; everybody knows everybody else's theories need critical examination, yet can't generalise this result to themselves.

(And before you say it: Yes, I do recognise that the generally accepted account of 9/11 is equally demanding of critical examination; yes, I've carried out that examination both in isolation and in comparison to the various conspiracy theories; and my conclusion is that it's the only rational explanation that's been offered and that its flaws are only in minor details.)

Dave
 
dtugg said:
No, before the bombings started they said they would try him in Afghanistan. After, they said they would be willing to him hand him over for trial in a third country. Both of those were completely unacceptable answers. Why the hell should he be tried in Afghanistan or Turkey or Saudi Arabia for crimes that happened in the United States and killed mostly US citizens? I doubt they would have actually done that anyway, most likely they were just stalling for time. If they actually cared about preventing their crappy country from being invaded they would have done what they were told. It's not like they were in a position to negotiate.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but there was still little sign of evidence and a subsequent terrible track record by the Bush admin on the truth.
 
Noteworthy as an example of this phenomenon of little or no explanation is the 9/11 Commission report's failure to mention that WTC 7 pulverized itself on the afternoon of 9/11. I am not here saying no explanation of the event was ever offered, for we know, of course, that NIST took a stab (literally and figuratively) at explanation in 2008, 7 years after the event. But, the 9/11 Commission report did not even mention the event, let alone offer explanation.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL Thats because it was about the least mysterious thing that happened that day!

That it then took 7 years to even offer an explanation, separate and apart from assessment of the validity of that explanation, should rank, I think, as an historical red flag that says something about this generation of inquirers and citizens.
Click to expand...

They spent millions of dollars proving what sane people already knew. It was badly damaged and uncontrollably on fire........

The only thing really to be gained with the NIST WTC7 report was if they found a fundamental flaw in the buildings design that was present in many other Buildings in the US......I could see that being hushed up for obvious security reasons.........
 
Truthers have been right in claiming the US Military/CIA employs terrorist assets. Assets that sometimes turn on them.
 
Profanz said:
Truthers have been right in claiming the US Military/CIA employs terrorist assets. Assets that sometimes turn on them.
Click to expand...

I knew that they employed people who later became terrorists, but are you saying they employ those who are known to be terrorists at the time?
 
Profanz said:
Truthers have been right in claiming the US Military/CIA employs terrorist assets. Assets that sometimes turn on them.
Click to expand...

That is a dur kind of moment.

Anyone with any kind of research skills can find examples of the US government supporting "freedom fighters" (who would be terrorists to their own governments) including the Contras, Fidel Castro, the Mujahadeen and others.

The reply there is "so what?"

Or do you mean that to the vast majority of truthers, this comes as a suprise?

And even with this "correct" information, how does that change the common narrative? How does that support truther nuttiness?

Come on Profanz... give me good concrete examples of how that trivial piece of well known information supports the story? Or is it just an example of digging for any scrap of dignity you can find left over?

The list of things truthers get wrong is momumental...and they never fix it.
hijackers still alive
missing $2.3 trillion
Barbara Olson still alive
missing $180 billion in gold
Put order
UBL never confessed.
KSM only confessed after torture
remote controlled jets
CD

the list is longer than my arm, and I can keep adding to it if you want. I'm asking for examples of ANYTHING the truth movement has gotten right. So far that list is rather small, and most of it is trivial.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I knew that they employed people who later became terrorists, but are you saying they employ those who are known to be terrorists at the time?
Click to expand...

I think that the one that recently shot up Fort Hood set off more red flags before hand than some people that have been tortured.

I think the same is probably true for the one who killed the agents at the CIA base.

So it doesn't seem so far fetched to me to suggest that some of the 9/11 hijackers might have been US intelligence assets at one time. It seems even less far fetched to suggest that OBL was a CIA asset at one time.
 
Profanz said:
Truthers have been right in claiming the US Military/CIA employs terrorist assets. Assets that sometimes turn on them.
Click to expand...

LOL, We knew that long before the Truther movement....your enemies enemy is your friend. We were allies with Russia against the Nazis, supported the Mujaheddin against the Russians, The Contras against the FSLN., The UDA against the IRA etc etc etc
And you are right its a dangerous tactic that can backfire as Pakistan is now finding to its cost.
 
Profanz said:
I think that the one that recently shot up Fort Hood set off more red flags before hand than some people that have been tortured.

I think the same is probably true for the one who killed the agents at the CIA base.

So it doesn't seem so far fetched to me to suggest that some of the 9/11 hijackers might have been US intelligence assets at one time. It seems even less far fetched to suggest that OBL was a CIA asset at one time.
Click to expand...


So what if they were? Allies often become enemies. They may well have been and always just been using the US to further their aims. Peoples motives are often very complex and change over time. People are sane and then become mentally ill etc
 
Profanz said:
So it doesn't seem so far fetched to me to suggest that some of the 9/11 hijackers might have been US intelligence assets at one time. It seems even less far fetched to suggest that OBL was a CIA asset at one time.
Click to expand...

but ofcourse, in perfect Truther form, no evidence is presented.
 
Profanz said:
I think that the one that recently shot up Fort Hood set off more red flags before hand than some people that have been tortured.

I think the same is probably true for the one who killed the agents at the CIA base.

So it doesn't seem so far fetched to me to suggest that some of the 9/11 hijackers might have been US intelligence assets at one time. It seems even less far fetched to suggest that OBL was a CIA asset at one time.
Click to expand...

So you have some real support for this right? Not just right wing hate sites with bad photocopies, right?

I mean with claims like that one should have rock solid evidence.

got any?

(I knew you were trying to go with the Tim Os was a CIA operative who was in fact UBL.)

Waiting to see any real support as opposed to bs supposition.
 
BCR said:
"What has the truth movement actually gotten right?"

Well, as a truther...

1) Proved that the AAL77 FDR NTSB data was missing 4-6 seconds of data in the released outputs.
2) Established the full radar flight path for AAL77.

Please don't confuse P4T/CIT with the "truth movement". Rational truthers have fought them tooth-and-nail on their nonsense.
Click to expand...

You're a truther???

What claims that promote inside job have they got right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom