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

Childlike Empress said:
As paloalto explained to you at length, he did original research. It stands after months of deflection in several threads. Nothing from the "debunker" side.
Click to expand...

Oh he said he did... ya... ok... :rolleyes:

You can instantly believe him if you want, as you always do with anyone that says anything you feel is on the side of 911 cults.

But i don't just buy what some joe shmoe says on the internet. Especially one that comes to a skeptics forum to spew conspiracy cult nonsense.

BTW, trying the make the word "debunker" into something bad, doesn't work with me either.
 
Last edited:
The Platypus said:
Reciting what conspiracy cult websites have told you to believe, is not "original" nor is it "research".
Click to expand...


Maybe you missed the post, but I referred to exactly where, in almost all cases official US government documents, I found this information.
 
Last edited:
The Platypus said:
BTW, trying the make the word "debunker" into something bad, doesn't work with me either.
Click to expand...


Like you did with "original" and "research"? The invitation is there for you as well. I'll help you with locating the documents if you don't manage it on your own, like i'd done with dafydd if he had genuinely looked.
 
Childlike Empress said:
There's a difference between original research and comprehending research. None of you is too stupid to look up the documents and check if their content is correctly represented by paloalto's posts. If you'd find errors, you could post them and show what a top debunker you are. Obviously you aren't willing to do that, so it goes round and round in circles of pantomime debunking.
Click to expand...

Why bother? The truth about 911 will be in the history books when we are all dead and gone. The 911 ''truth''' movement has been a dead duck for a long time.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Like you did with "original" and "research"? The invitation is there for you as well. I'll help you with locating the documents if you don't manage it on your own, like i'd done with dafydd if he had genuinely looked.
Click to expand...

Where did i use those words in the same way you have repeatedly used "debunker"? Lying doesn't help you, neither does making arrogant offers.

Weird how every conspiracy kook thinks their games are all new, to everyone.
 
Childlike Empress said:
As paloalto explained to you at length, he did original research. It stands after months of deflection in several threads. Nothing from the "debunker" side.
Click to expand...
His conclusions are nonsense. paloalto has not proved anything except he can string together statements and make up fake conclusions. Like CIT.
 
paloalto said:
Maybe you missed the post, but I referred to exactly where, in almost all cases the official US government documents, I found this information.
Click to expand...

So... Even IF you aren't just reciting some other conspiracy kook you find convincing. So then your good at taking bits and pieces of documents and weaving conspiracy out of them. so what, that's old trickery and not impressive. It looks like you are looking to be the star of your own sect of the 911 cults.

Let's even say you have found some important information that actually does reveal something, why come here? An obscure skeptics forum, full of skeptical people. If you are as air tight correct as you want me to believe then why not go present this somewhere more appropriate, instead of trying to convince anonymous people on the internet, in a forum, where you most likely won't be believed?

I don't buy it, i've heard and seen this song and dance too many times.
 
The Platypus said:
Let's even say you have found some important information that actually does reveal something, why come here? An obscure skeptics forum, full of skeptical people. If you are as air tight correct as you want me to believe then why not go present this somewhere more appropriate, instead of trying to convince anonymous people on the internet, in a forum, where you most likely won't be believed?
.
Click to expand...

Why not take it to the Washington Post, The New York Times and Time Magazine?
 
paloalto said:
Harpers January 2007, article by Ken Silverstein. Stated that Richard Blee was very close to Black and that Blee had not only been Chief of the CIA bin Laden unit but Chief of the CIA Rendition unit as well. This meant when the information on Khalid Sheikh Mohamed went to the CIA on June 12, 2001, to the Rendition unit, it would have gone very quickly to Black and then from Black to Tenet.
Click to expand...

Let's start with this one. I looked at Harpers page listing Silverstein's articles and do not find one in January 2007. I looked at the January 2007 list of articles in Harpers and did not find one by Silverstein. There is a letter from Silverstein that month, but it's apparently about a November 2006 article called Barack Obama, Inc., so I doubt it's the one you are referring to.
 
Brainster said:
Let's start with this one. I looked at Harpers page listing Silverstein's articles and do not find one in January 2007. I looked at the January 2007 list of articles in Harpers and did not find one by Silverstein. There is a letter from Silverstein that month, but it's apparently about a November 2006 article called Barack Obama, Inc., so I doubt it's the one you are referring to.
Click to expand...

I thought so. If you look up the ''evidence'' it is conspicuous by its absence
 
paloalto said:
Harpers January 2007, article by Ken Silverstein. Stated that Richard Blee was very close to Black and that Blee had not only been Chief of the CIA bin Laden unit but Chief of the CIA Rendition unit as well. This meant when the information on Khalid Sheikh Mohamed went to the CIA on June 12, 2001, to the Rendition unit, it would have gone very quickly to Black and then from Black to Tenet.
Click to expand...
Presumes facts not in evidence.
 
dafydd said:
Read it. Missed the bit about the CIA letting 911 go ahead. Perhaps you could point me to it?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid it isn't that simple. If you ask nicely, I'm sure paloalto is willing to explain which piece of the puzzle this article delivered. Again.

If you need further google help, i'm still here for you.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I'm afraid it isn't that simple. If you ask nicely, I'm sure paloalto is willing to explain which piece of the puzzle this article delivered. Again.

If you need further google help, i'm still here for you.
Click to expand...

So you don't know but desperately want to pretend you do? All right then... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom