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

Appeal to ridicule fallacy!!!

The hijackers were tracked and protected since at least 1998. People we trust to "keep us safe" knew what was going to happen and what happened as soon as it happened.

In this thread paloalto is supplying you with well researched information from official documents concerning the details.

A big problem here is that some people are being overly skeptical instead of being objective.

Another is that some comment without checking the official documents, or even knowing where to get them!

I haven't read almost any of this crap, but this last point does seem a little far fetched. paloalto has "well researched information'? Do you think it would hold up in court or in a best-selling? A prize winning book? That'd be great 'cause then he could stop posting here and be a hero for our age.

Dude, ya' gotta stop confusing cool suggestions for "well researched information". They're just not the same.
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More appeal to ridicule!!!

Actually, some of the information has come out in a Pulitzer Prize winning book called "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright.

Other information has come out in a book called "The Eleventh Day", by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. The book was a finalist for the Pulitzer.
 
Last edited:
Because that is exactly what is happening, you will be long dead before the truth actually officially comes out. And if the CIA and FBI HQ had really wanted you to know this information they would have either not lied to the Joint Inquiry Committee, or the 9/11 Commission to hide their crimes, or hidden material information from these US government investigations. They could have come clean and told what had really taken place and why they had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

They could have said that they had mounted a huge criminal conspiracy to hide the fact from the FBI Cole bombing investigators that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing, to hide the CIA criminal culpability in allowing the attacks on the USS Cole to take place.

They could have said when FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie found Mihdhar and Hazmi inside of the US on August 22, 2001, that the CIA and FBI HQ knew these al Qaeda terrorists were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack they had been warned about since April 2001, that would result in the murder of many perhaps of thousands of Americans, cause mass American casualties.

They could have said that when they had shut down all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US, they clearly knew the result would be allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans. They could have said that they had used criminal methods and outright lies to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

They could have said that CIA Director George Tenet flew down to Crawford Texas on August 24, 2001, for a six hour meeting with the President instead of saying that Tenet had not talked to the President in all of August, the outright lie that Tenet had made to the 9/11 Commission in the public hearings on April 14, 2004.

They could have said that Tenet gave the President of the United States the information that he and the CIA had at that time, the fact that both al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack, and the fact that Zacarias Moussaoui had been arrested in Minnesota when the FBI thought he was possible a al Qaeda terrorist or was working with a group closely connected to the al Qaeda terrorists, had two knives on his possession with 4 inch blades, just the kind you could take legally through airport security, and was trying to learn how to fly a huge commercial aircraft, a B747, without even having a private pilot’s license.

They could also have said that Tenet told President Bush that the CIA had been closely working with agents at FBI HQ to insure that any and all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found inside the US were shut down.

Again, if the CIA and FBI HQ had really wanted you to know this information they would have come clean in the beginning and told what had really taken place and why they had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

That is how I know.


I'm sorry, but that's not knowledge; that's peculation. You don't actually know the thing you claimed to know. You simply believe it.
 
Last edited:
More appeal to ridicule!!!

Actually, some of the information has come out in a Pulitzer Prize winning book called "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright.

Other information has come out in a book called "The Eleventh Day", by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. The book was a finalist for the Pulitzer.

So you mean paloato is just a plagiarist.. I mean messenger? And it's won all these great prizes but no one knows about it except the silly people here on the JREF? And if I was to talk to a real well educated folk, they'd know the truth that Bush let it happen? Right? Or something like that?

Don't ya' get it dude? That's what makes you a Truther. The idea that "everybody knows". It's only a few holdouts and you're just here makin' sure we don't have any influence on the naive and weak minds not yet touched by THE TRUTH!!!

Maybe it scores with the girls at the kind of parties you go to. I don't know. I can't understand the appeal of this kind of chasing fame. Have a good life. Maybe it'll all come through for you some time. I really hope it all works out.
 
Because that is exactly what is happening, you will be long dead before the truth actually officially comes out.
So you have the gift of prophecy and can predict the future? If you know the truth and have evidence of it, why couldn't you just release it now and we'd all know before we were dead?

And if the CIA and FBI HQ had really wanted you to know this information they would have either not lied to the Joint Inquiry Committee, or the 9/11 Commission to hide their crimes, or hidden material information from these US government investigations. They could have come clean and told what had really taken place and why they had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.
You realize that is all supposition and you have yet to provide any evidence to support your assumptions?

They could have said that they had mounted a huge criminal conspiracy to hide the fact from the FBI Cole bombing investigators that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing, to hide the CIA criminal culpability in allowing the attacks on the USS Cole to take place.
They could have said they were hiding little green men in Area 51 as well. Making a claim isn't the same as having evidence supporting it.

They could have said when FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie found Mihdhar and Hazmi inside of the US on August 22, 2001, that the CIA and FBI HQ knew these al Qaeda terrorists were here to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack they had been warned about since April 2001, that would result in the murder of many perhaps of thousands of Americans, cause mass American casualties.
You are making several leaps of logic here and wiith the benefit of hindsight, connecting dots that were not connected in the 2-3 weeks before 9/11.

They could have said that when they had shut down all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US, they clearly knew the result would be allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans. They could have said that they had used criminal methods and outright lies to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.
More supposition presented as fact. Somehow you "know" what others thought? That they "knew" there would be "thousands" of deaths (as opposed to tens or hundreds)? That "criminal" methods were used (then it should be simple to prosecute them, right)? That "outright" lies were told (then it should be simple to provide examples, right)?

They could have said that Tenet gave the President of the United States the information that he and the CIA had at that time
Which you know, how?

the fact that both al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack
Which we knew, how?

the fact that Zacarias Moussaoui had been arrested in Minnesota when the FBI thought he was possible a al Qaeda terrorist or was working with a group closely connected to the al Qaeda terrorists, had two knives on his possession with 4 inch blades, just the kind you could take legally through airport security, and was trying to learn how to fly a huge commercial aircraft, a B747, without even having a private pilot’s license.
Funny how you suddenly went from claims of fact to "possible." With the benefit of hindsight you think a couple kines on a single arrested criminal should somehow "magically" imply hijacking an aircraft? Since his B747 training did not require a pilot's license, other than it was really suspicious (and the reason why in hindsight his instructors said they were worried) your point would be?

They could also have said that Tenet told President Bush that the CIA had been closely working with agents at FBI HQ to insure that any and all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found inside the US were shut down.
Which you know, how?

Again, if the CIA and FBI HQ had really wanted you to know this information they would have come clean in the beginning and told what had really taken place and why they had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

That is how I know.
Uh, no - this is your fantasy presented as fact.
 
More appeal to ridicule!!!

Just plain ridicule, I thought.

Actually, some of the information has come out in a Pulitzer Prize winning book called "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright.

Other information has come out in a book called "The Eleventh Day", by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. The book was a finalist for the Pulitzer.

Now, that looks strangely like a fallacious appeal to authority. The issue isn't whether paloalto uses information from good books and other reputable sources. The issue is what paloalto attempts to infer from that information.

But you already knew that, right?
 
I know it's not a matter of "looking back in hindsight" or "incompetence" when it comes to this issue.
 
The issue isn't whether paloalto uses information from good books and other reputable sources. The issue is what paloalto attempts to infer from that information.


And "attempts to infer" is being generous. Because they really don't even do that. They just say "Hi, I'm a Truther and Joe Blow at CIA didn't email Bob Whoever at FBI on June 31st, 2001. Gee, what about that?" Except they skip the "gee, what about that" part. Apparently we're supposed to draw our own inferences based on who is repeating the information.


The lack of inter-departmental cooperation before 9/11 is a well-known factor in the attacks. Apparently, Truthers are now "researching" individual instances of that, as if every single unreplied email and missed phone call is somehow provocative on its own. They're still digging for the pony.
 
And "attempts to infer" is being generous. Because they really don't even do that. They just say "Hi, I'm a Truther and Joe Blow at CIA didn't email Bob Whoever at FBI on June 31st, 2001. Gee, what about that?" Except they skip the "gee, what about that" part. Apparently we're supposed to draw our own inferences based on who is repeating the information.

The lack of inter-departmental cooperation before 9/11 is a well-known factor in the attacks. Apparently, Truthers are now "researching" individual instances of that, as if every single unreplied email and missed phone call is somehow provocative on its own. They're still digging for the pony.
Only in truther-land can the documented failure of intelligence agencies to put two and two together and protect us be seen as evidence of the intelligence agencies intentionally attacking us. :confused:
 
Appeal to ridicule fallacy!!!

The hijackers were tracked and protected since at least 1998. People we trust to "keep us safe" knew what was going to happen and what happened as soon as it happened.

In this thread paloalto is supplying you with well researched information from official documents concerning the details.

A big problem here is that some people are being overly skeptical instead of being objective.

Another is that some comment without checking the official documents, or even knowing where to get them!

That's not appeal to ridicule, it's pointing out, sarcastically, that it makes no logical sense to openly publish the materials exposing their conspiracy. It is an incompetent decision, and entirely inconsistent with the idea of the team of mastermind conspirators who rarely put a foot wrong. It's something out of Rocky and Bullwinkle, or Family Guy. If they could rely on the public not caring, why bother with 9/11 in the first place? And if the public only wouldn't care after 9/11, then why bother to openly present damning evidence in the first place? Why not just keep mum?

More appeal to ridicule!!!
You can't just keep saying that every time someone makes a joke, and it hasn't been true either of the two times you've used it in the past page.

Actually, some of the information has come out in a Pulitzer Prize winning book called "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright.

Other information has come out in a book called "The Eleventh Day", by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. The book was a finalist for the Pulitzer.

Several debunkers have quoted and rec'd those books.

One of PA's consistent failings is that he claims to somehow know what US officials believed and thought before 9/11, based on absolutely no evidence. That's what the walls of text are to hide.

I know it's not a matter of "looking back in hindsight"
PaloAlto's entire argument is about what he believes the government did and should have known. Hindsight.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hindsight
perception of the nature of an event after it has happened

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hindsight
recognition of the realities, possibilities, or requirements of a situation, event, decision etc., after its occurrence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hindsight
Perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred.

or "incompetence" when it comes to this issue.

There is no way to reconcile "top secret conspiracy" with "openly publishing reams of damning information, including in Pulitzer-Prize winning books, based on the slim hope the public wouldn't notice". That is incompetence by definition. Incompetence is also the "official" explanation for the gov't's failings, so it's still relevant.
 
Last edited:
The way in which things are misquoted here is also interesting. Yes, Looming Tower won a Pulitzer Prize. But does Looming Tower tell us that the US government let 9/11 happen? No it does not. In fact, as Wikipedia puts it,
The book also describes some of the problems with lack of cooperation between the FBI and the CIA and other American government organizations that prevented them from uncovering the 9/11 plot in time.
It is our Truther friend paloalto over here on the JREF and his minion shure who tell us that's what the book is about. And that, my friends, is what makes you Truthers.

Yes, yes...there is a secret out there. Everyone knows it. The evidence is everywhere. It's only those knuckleheads on the JREF who won't admit it. Right? Get a grip on things. No one is listening to you and that's why you're here. If this were an opinion that was widely understood to be true and you could talk about in public, you would be talking about it in public - and not pretending that every book and article about 9/11 really says the same thing as you. It doesn't and that's called 'making things up.'
 
Last edited:
It's only those knuckleheads on the JREF who won't admit it. Right?

Oh, it's more than just us who won't admit it. The people who wrote the books, for example. They did the actual investigating of these calls and emails, and apparently didn't find any motivation beyond "lack of inter-departmental cooperation." It amuses me that the paloaltos of the world seem to think they know the material better than the people who compiled it.
 
The way in which things are misquoted here is also interesting. Yes, Looming Tower won a Pulitzer Prize. But does Looming Tower tell us that the US government let 9/11 happen? No it does not.

Yes it does, this is exactly what this books says, that the US government let 9/11 happen.

Obviously you have never read this book, if you had you did not comprehend what it actually said. Small wonder!

Looming Tower clearly said that the CIA had [criminally] obstructed the FBI criminal investigation of the bombing of the USS Cole. It was this criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation of the bombing of the USS Cole that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The CIA and later even the FBI HQ were hiding the information that Walid Bin Attash had been at the al Qaeda planning meeting on January 6-8, 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, actually planning the Cole bombing. The CIA in fact had photos of all three of these al Qaeda terrorists, connected at that time to the east African bombings, taken at this meeting, and even knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar had a multi-entry visa for the US and that his traveling companion, Nawaf al-Hazmi had entered the US one week after this meeting ended, on January 15, 2000.

According to Lawrence Wright, Ali Soufan, lead FBI Cole bombing investigator sent a request in November 2000 to the CIA Yemen Station for any information the CIA had on Walid bin Attash, or any information the CIA had on any al Qaeda planning meeting in southeast Asia in January 2000. After being told that the CIA had none of this information, when in fact they had this exact information, Soufan sent this same request to Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, to be forwarded to CIA head quarters in the US. Freeh came back with the answer that the CIA had none of this information. But according to page 238-239 of the DOJ IG report and page 181 of the 9/11 Commission report, Freeh had been given this information, that Khalid and Nawaf, two al Qaeda terrorists were going to a al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in January 2000 both by the NSA, in December 1999 and by the CIA in January 2000. Louis Freeh had sabotaged his own criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors on the USS Cole when he said that the CIA had none of this information. While Wright was the first to report this request by Soufan to FBI Director Louis Freeh, he inexplicably left out the fact that Freeh himself had been given this information by both the CIA an NSA.

This book described the meeting in New York City at the New York FBI filed office on June 11, 2001 between the CIA, FBI HQ and the Cole bombing investigators in New York City, where FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi gave FBI Agent and Cole bombing investigator Steve Bongardt and members of his team, three photos of Khalid al-Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur. One photo had only Mihdhar and Hazmi in it. At that point, CIA officer Clarke Shannon asked Bongardt and his other FBI Cole bombing investigators if they recognized anyone in these photos.

Since one photo only had Mihdhar and Hazmi in it, and the CIA knew exactly what these two al Qaeda terrorists looked like, it is clear that the CIA only wanted to know if Bongardt and Ali Soufan, in their search for Walid bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, had uncovered the information that the CIA had been trying to keep secret since bin Attash had been identified in the Kuala Lumpur photo on January 4, 2001. The CIA wanted to know if Bongardt and his team had uncovered the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had also been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with bin Attash planning the Cole bombing. As Lawrence Wright reported, in Looming Tower, Bongardt said he nor anyone on his team knew who these people in the photos were. Bongardt then asked who were the people in these photos taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting? Were there more photos of other al Qaeda terrorists at this meeting? And what did these people have to do with the bombing of the USS Cole, since Bongardt and his team were investigating this bombing and the CIA was clearly asking them about the people in these photos.

Shannon refused to answer Bongardt’s question, even when he knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing. But Shannon also knew, as did his former CIA boss, Tom Wilshire, that Hazmi was already inside of the US in order to take part in an al Qaeda terrorist attack, and knew that Mihdhar had a US visa so he could join Hazmi in this attack. Since the three photos of Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur had been obtained from the CIA by Tom Wilshire, just after he had been moved over from the job of Deputy Chief of the CIA bin Laden unit to be Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit, it is clear that it was Wilshire that had asked Corsi set up this meeting in order to find out for the CIA, what information the FBI Cole bombing investigators had uncovered on Mihdhar and Hazmi.

It is also clear from information in the DOJ IG report that Wilshire and Shannon both had the official FBI April 2001 request from FBI Agent Ali Soufan, who was leading the group of investigators that Bongardt was part of. Soufan had sent to the CIA in April 2001, a request for any information that the CIA had on Walid bin Attash and any information on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia that had taken place in January 2000. Instead of giving Soufan the information the CIA actually had at that time, Wilshire had requested that FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi set up this meeting with Soufan’s own people to find out if they knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting actually planning the Cole bombing with bin Attash, the information that the CIA had been trying to keep secret from the FBI criminal investigators since his identification from the Kuala Lumpur photo on January 4, 2001

When Wilshire found the CIA cable on July 13, 2001, that had identified bin Attash from his photo taken at Kuala Lumpur, he requested via email , email that is in the DOJ IG report, that his CIA managers, Richard Blee, Cofer Black, and George Tenet give him permission to send this Kuala Lumpur information over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. He was denied permission to do this. On July 23, 2001 Wilshire again made the same request via email, email that inexplicably was left out of the DOJ IG report, to his CIA managers, to pass this Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI and was denied permission again to do this. In this July 23, 2001 email Wilshire stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorists attack, as documented in DE #939 entered into the Moussaoui trial.

On August 22, 2001, Margaret Gillespie a FBI Agent at the CIA bin Laden unit was told by the INS that both al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and took this information to Tom Wilshire and Dina Corsi. Wilshire directed Corsi to write up an EC to start an “intelligence investigation” for Midhar and Hazmi. Starting an intelligence investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi would prevent Bongardt from being able to start any criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi since the FBI OIPR almost never allowed a criminal investigation and a intelligence investigation to take place against the same target at the same time.

On August 28, 2001 Bongardt accidentally got the EC that Corsi had written up to start this intelligence investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and called Corsi to ask her to allow him to start a criminal investigation instead for these al Qaeda terrorists. He even told Corsi that these al Qaeda terrorists were in the US in order to carry out some new al Qaeda terrorist attack.

But Corsi told Bongardt that he could not start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and that he had to destroy her EC because it had a NSA cable in it, describing the travels of Mihdhar and Hazmi to the Kuala Lumpur meeting in January 2000. She said that this NSA cable was restricted from being sent to FBI criminal investigators, without prior approval from the NSA General Council. But according to the DOJ IG report, Corsi’s request to pass the NSA Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI criminal Cole bombing investigators had already been approved by the NSA General Council on August 27, 2001. So she had no legal right to block his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. Hiding the fact that this approval had already been granted from Bongardt and shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was in fact a major Federal felony. It was these actions in fact that allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, since it is clear that if Bongardt and his team had been allowed to carry out a criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi they likely could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

When Bongardt protested and said that he could see no connection between the NSA information and any FISA warrant, he asked Corsi to get a legal ruling from the FBI NSLU attorneys to see if he could start an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. It was a connection to a FISA warrant that normally prevented NSA information from going to FBI criminal investigators without written permission from the NSA to prevent the contamination in a criminal trial with in admissible evidence obtained with a FISA warrant instead of a criminal search warrant.

According to the DOJ IG report, Corsi told Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that the NSLU attorney she had contacted, Sherry Sabol, had ruled he could have no part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But according to page 538, footnote 81 in the 9/11 Commission report, it says that Sherry Sabol told DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002 that she told Corsi that since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 29, 2001 Corsi in email to Bongardt said “if at such time as information is developed of a substantial Federal crime (by Mihdhar and Hazmi) this information will be passed over the wall”, meaning Bongardt could then start a criminal investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But according to the DOJ IG report, page 301, Corsi told DOJ IG investigators that she was aware by August 22, 2001 that the CIA had the photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, and knew that the CIA had been hiding this photo from Bongardt and his team. She even knew that this photo directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing at this meeting. So she already had evidence of a substantial Federal crime by both Mihdhar and Hazmi, and clearly knew this meant the investigation of these al Qaeda terrorists should have gone to Bongardt and his team and that she was committing a major Federal felony by shutting down his investigation for these two al Qaeda terrorists.

These lies and the deliberate withholding of this information from FBI Agents Ali Soufan, and Steve Bongardt and their team cost almost 3000 people their lives in 9/11, and has never been explained by any government investigation.

But Lawrence Wright’s book filled in many of the holes that were in the 9/11 Commission report and DOJ IG report, missing information that for some unexplained reason was simply left out of these reports. It is clear that Wright had documented the three times that FBI Agent Ali Soufan had made official FBI requests to the CIA about any al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur and any information that CIA had on Walid bin Attash, and the criminal behavior at the CIA and FBI HQ that had allowed this Kuala Lumpur information to be hidden from the FBI investigators on the Cole bombing, information that would have allowed Bongardt and his team a chance to stop the attacks on 9/11.

On September 12, 2001 the Yemen CIA Station chief gave Soufan a package of the three photos of Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur. Soufan went into the bathroom and threw up. In his book Soufan stated that he told another FBI agent in Yemen, that “they knew, they knew”. The CIA knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing with Walid bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack and then deliberately did not give this information to him or his team, information that he and his team could have used to prevent the attacks on 9/11.

Wright in later interviews stated that he could never understand why no one at the CIA had ever been held accountable for criminally withholding this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, information that could have prevented the al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 from taking place.

Again, obviously you have never read this book, or if you had, you did not comprehend what it actually said.
 
Last edited:
Yes it does, this is exactly what this books says, that the US government let 9/11 happen....
You forgot "from incompetence". Unless you somehow thought Sommers literally meant what he said, instead of using it as shorthand for "the govt screwed up".
 
I've said several times that I really think a lot of Truthers suffer from low levels of reading comprehension. This is largely hidden behind their 'wall of text' method of posting, leaving the impression they can read and write a lot. But that's not what I think is the problem. I really think paloalto doesn't understand the point that 000063 is referring to.

paloalto, this is what leaves the impression of youth. At a younger age, I also had this problem. It's very common as ones verbal skills develop. There's nothing wrong with it. The problem is developing strategies to hide rather than the skills you need to make sure it doesn't happen. If you follow my advice though, almost certainly you'll stop seeing conspiracies everywhere. But people will start listening to you, and you may even find they think you have good opinions and are worth listening to.
 
Last edited:
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.

I thought so. If you look up the ''evidence'' it is conspicuous by its absence

Not so fast, young friend. Prejudice clouds your judgement. Here it is. It's web only and therefore not indexed where Brainster looked.


How's that debunking progressing, Brainster? Your buddies obviously could need some help. The pantomime remains cute but unimpressive.
 
Last edited:
I've said several times that I really think a lot of Truthers suffer from low levels of reading comprehension.

I think he's comprehending the wrong thing. He's so fixated on trying to find the super-secret conspiracy that he's oblivious to the whole point of the books he reads
 
How's that debunking progressing, Brainster? Your buddies obviously could need some help. The pantomime remains cute but unimpressive.

Perhaps you could point me to the bit that says where the USA authorities knew about 911 but let it go ahead. Thank you in advance.
 
Perhaps you could point me to the bit that says where the USA authorities knew about 911 but let it go ahead. Thank you in advance.


As I told you before, it isn't that simple. I'm afraid there is no way for you around reading the well-written "walls of text" paloalto has offered on several angles of his research. Little "bits" just don't cut it. You have to put some effort into comprehending it - much more than goes into your hilariously uninformed one-liners. Sorry.
 

Back
Top Bottom