CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

[newton3376]

The OP of that thread is a good summary.

Wrong Childlike Empress.....

Wrong wrong wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.

Unlike Sabrina, who does know what she is taking about and tried to explain things in the real world to you:

She tried to explain things here, here, here, here, here , and here. That is just a sample of her trying to talk some *********** sense into you.

Then I also tried to talk some *********** sense into you here , here , here , and here .

At least try to listen to people who know what the **** they are talking about.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Wrong Childlike Empress.....

Wrong wrong wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.

Unlike Sabrina, who does know what she is taking about and tried to explain things in the real world to you:

She tried to explain things here, here, here, here, here , and here. That is just a sample of her trying to talk some *********** sense into you.

Then I also tried to talk some *********** sense into you here , here , here , and here .

At least try to listen to people who know what the **** they are talking about.

You can lead a horse to water............

 

[Childlike Empress]

Wrong Childlike Empress.....

Wrong wrong wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.

Unlike Sabrina, who does know what she is taking about and tried to explain things in the real world to you:

She tried to explain things here, here, here, here, here , and here. That is just a sample of her trying to talk some *********** sense into you.

Then I also tried to talk some *********** sense into you here , here , here , and here .

At least try to listen to people who know what the **** they are talking about.

There's a reason why you link to single posts out of context. You and Sabrina went on numerous general rants based on you being some small lights in some agency, and avoided the very specific information about very specific events sourced with official documents like the plague. You were set straight every time, and not by me. I don't remember having made more that a handful of posts adding context in that thread. But I remember that the thread is a very sad and embarrassing display of the degree of denial that's common here.

 

[carlitos]

This game ends here, carlitos.

Guess not.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You are attacking the messenger. Nobody cares.

Let me get this straight.

You disagree with the official theory.

At some point you champion theory X, which disagrees with the official one.

Later, you find someone implying theory Y which also disagrees with the official theory, and includes statements A,B and C, and champion that idea too,pushing the complete theory Y as being proof that the official theory is wrong and therefore supporting implicitly if not explicitly theory Y.

Someone points out that theories X and Y are mutually exclusive to the extent that statements A, B and C that you are suggesting as good sources of facts over 9/11, if true outright invalidate theory X. Your response?

It isn't important.



Wow. That's some real special cognitive dissonance there. Even if the official theory is complete hogswash and 9/11 was an inside job, you must realise that you cant hold two totally conflicting ideas to be equally correct.

 

[Childlike Empress]

They aren't mutually exclusive, as I explained to these folks several times and they are fully aware of. The last time I responded was only a few days ago. The intent is to bring me into a position where I can either answer again and again, waste my time and derail every thread and topic I want to participate in (they follow me around), or I don't respond and the uninformed reader, like you, thinks I don't have an answer to it. Usually I do the latter.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

the thread is a very sad and embarrassing display of the degree of denial that's common here.

First cast the plank out of your own eye.................

 

[newton3376]

There's a reason why you link to single posts out of context.

Yeah.....like I tried to "hide" the context....you can just look up the post number there Sherlock Holmes......

You and Sabrina went on numerous general rants based on you being some small lights in some agency, and avoided the very specific information about very specific events sourced with official documents like the plague.

1. You do not know what we do day to day or what agencies we interact with. So to say "small lights" tells me you are hoping that is true in an attempt to belittle what we do. But the truth is you are clueless.

2. Sabrina and others dealt more with the specific points....I was dealing with the conclusion of why certain decisions were made and was trying to educate the truthers on some details of the Intel world. A world that, unless you are in it, you will know very little about.

You were set straight every time, and not by me. I don't remember having made more that a handful of posts adding context in that thread. But I remember that the thread is a very sad and embarrassing display of the degree of denial that's common here.

The posts were made so that people like yourself...conspiracy theorists who pretty much know nothing...could perhaps learn something about why you should not assume you understand what people's motivations are or go around accusing people of stuff that you know nothing about.

That thread is a very sad display of typical conversations with truthers....it usually goes something like this...


1. Truther makes some unwarranted conclusions based off of lies, distortions, and errors of factual data.

2. Various experts step in and try to explain to the truther why they are misrepresenting, misunderstanding, and misinterpretating the facts.

3. Truther ignores every rational, logical, and factual explanation and keeps repeating debunked arguments over and over.

4. Experts attempt to get through to truthers thick skulls why their retarded ideas are incorrect.

5. Truthers ignorantly continue repeating nonsense and try to ignore the facts and arguments refuting them.

6. Experts give up trying to convince truthers who are either too stupid or deluded to understand the arguments.

7. Truthers just keep babbling even though no one is listening anymore.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Did you watch the Richard Clarke Interview, newton? Or listen to the other interviews in the documentary? Those informed discussions are based on the very information paloalto presented over there. Known facts from several investigations and other sources, mounting up to the 2011 level of detail knowledge we have.

Information that you and Sabrina blatantly deny exists and tried to handwave away with personal anecdotes without the slightest connection to the case.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

or I don't respond and the uninformed reader, like you, thinks I don't have an answer to it. Usually I do the latter.

No, we know you don't have an answer and if you were honest, so do you.
When it takes more work to not answer a simple question than it would take to answer it then its clear to most folks that you are simply either in denial or have an ulterior motive for not doing so.

 

[carlitos]

When it takes more work to not answer a simple question than it would take to answer it then its clear to most folks that you are simply either in denial or have an ulterior motive for not doing so.

The yes / no question was Did Frances and Michael intentionally allow 9/11 to happen. It's really a simple yes or no. The question was not "intentionally prevent the system from working."

I realize that you don't want to answer a "yes or no" question for the reasons I stated above, but please stop pretending that you have answered it.

It's only a simple yes or no question for simpletons. Their intentional actions allowed 9/11 to happen. This is a fact. Why they did what they did, and if and to which extent they were aware of the consequences, is a different question we can not know. Shouldn't we ask them, Carlitos? Hm?

Weasel wording highlighted. No answer given.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Did you watch the Richard Clarke Interview, newton? Or listen to the other interviews in the documentary? Those informed discussions are based on the very information paloalto presented over there. Known facts from several investigations and other sources, mounting up to the 2011 level of detail knowledge we have.

Information that you and Sabrina blatantly deny exists and tried to handwave away with personal anecdotes without the slightest connection to the case.

Why would any of us take your advice and listen to anything you suggest? You have chosen to maintain untenable positions on other subjects so we know your opinion on anything is suspect. You take exactly the same tone in the above discussion as you did when insisting a guy can see an airliner when its behind a building. This is your choice, even most twoofers can see through CITs scam, that you cannot, or will not, reflects very badly on your credibility. Grown ups admit when they have made a mistake. Its time to grow up CE.

 

[bill smith]

A little background that I came across..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6392341&postcount=259 hyperlink

 

[newton3376]

Did you watch the Richard Clarke Interview, newton? Or listen to the other interviews in the documentary? Those informed discussions are based on the very information paloalto presented over there. Known facts from several investigations and other sources, mounting up to the 2011 level of detail knowledge we have.

Information that you and Sabrina blatantly deny exists and tried to handwave away with personal anecdotes without the slightest connection to the case.

I've heard some of the interviews yes......why?

What "information" do you think I am "blatantly" denying exists? Can you be a little bit less vague CE?

 

[Childlike Empress]

The information that a small group of people in the CIA going up to Tenet withhold from the FBI and other agencies the crucial information that two terrorists who were well known and closely surveilled at the meeting in Malaysia had entered the US, for a period starting in early 2000, in a way that can not technically be anything other than intentional. And more (which most likely will be the topic of part two of the documentary).

To enlighten you on what was actually brought out at the Moussaoui trial, information that very few Americans are even aware of today, the documents presented at the Moussaoui trial prove that the CIA knew, when Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were found inside of the US, that they were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. Not only did they not alert FBI agents that could have stopped Mihdhar and Hazmi, but they conspired with FBI HQ agents to shut down the one criminal FBI investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, the investigation by the FBI Cole bombing investigators in the New York FBI filed office, that wanted to search and find these terrorists before they carried out the attacks on 9/11. The documents at the Moussaoui trial also show that the FBI HQ agents who shut down this FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi knew full well that they were acting illegally to criminally obstruct this investigation, and knew that their criminal actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans.

That's what the OP of that thread says and what you were denying without any serious challenge over a series of posts. Do you now agree that this is what the facts say?

 

[The Big Dog]

The information that a small group of people in the CIA going up to Tenet withhold from the FBI and other agencies the crucial information that two terrorists who were well known and closely surveilled at the meeting in Malaysia had entered the US, for a period starting in early 2000, in a way that can not technically be anything other than intentional. And more (which most likely will be the topic of part two of the documentary).

That's what the OP of that thread says and what you were denying without any serious challenge over a series of posts. Do you now agree that this is what the facts say?

I am posting this tonight on Pilots for Truth's forum.

Seems like the end of the day for the No Plane at the Pentagon and North of Citgo garbage.

Well done CE, gives us Debunkers one hell of a lot of evidence to at least shut down that nonsense.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The information that a small group of people in the CIA going up to Tenet withhold from the FBI and other agencies the crucial information that two terrorists who were well known and closely surveilled at the meeting in Malaysia had entered the US, for a period starting in early 2000, in a way that can not technically be anything other than intentional. And more (which most likely will be the topic of part two of the documentary).

That's what the OP of that thread says and what you were denying without any serious challenge over a series of posts. Do you now agree that this is what the facts say?

So did anyone on JREF say the CIA hadn't screwed up before 911? I don't recall that. Inter service rivalry let chances to stop 911 slip away , are you saying you just found that out?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I am posting this tonight on Pilots for Truth's forum.

Seems like the end of the day for the No Plane at the Pentagon and North of Citgo garbage.

Well done CE, gives us Debunkers one hell of a lot of evidence to at least shut down that nonsense.

Well I still want to know how people can see through buildings! maybe CE is denying us that information because of Twoofer/debunker rivalry?

 

[thatsmystory]

If this story feels a bit one-sided, that is the fault of these CIA officials, all of whom were explained what we were learning here and chose not to speak to us.

After they issued us the Joint Statement, we replied to Tenet's PR man Bill Harlow with a detailed point by point explanation of this story and asked -- no begged -- that they help us tell an accurate story. We wrote: “If there are simple – even benign or admirable – explanations for those issues, I sincerely wish Mr. Tenet, et al, would break their media silence and simply provide those answers. I want them to realize that their failure to do so only appears to give credence to speculation like that in the Clarke interview.”

From the secrecykills podcast transcript

As I understand the argument against transparency--people who believe the CIA owes the public some answers are out of line for not accepting the (absurd) premise that the CIA's repeated obstructions of al Qaeda investigations were done in good faith.

If this is all much to do about nothing then why won't CIA officials and agents explain their conduct? Why does the CIA continually resort to stupid talking points which do nothing but insult the public and further erode public confidence in government?

 

[Myriad]

As I understand the argument against transparency--people who believe the CIA owes the public some answers are out of line for not accepting the (absurd) premise that the CIA's repeated obstructions of al Qaeda investigations were done in good faith.

If this is all much to do about nothing then why won't CIA officials and agents explain their conduct? Why does the CIA continually resort to stupid talking points which do nothing but insult the public and further erode public confidence in government?

It appears that they don't care whether a certain portion of the public (to wit: you) feel insulted or have your (obviously vast) confidence in government eroded.

Now, how could that be? It just doesn't make sense! Aren't your confidence and your feelings the most important things in the whole wide world to the CIA? Of course they are! So, I'm totally baffled here.

Respectfully,
Myriad