Debate (not debase) a Truther

ImANiceGuy said:
You didn't even read halfway up the page......try post #103.

I love when people post before even reading through a page or two of a thread....
Click to expand...

post #103 is an unrelated post by DC concerning Atta and the pilots.

Regarding Kissinger, what more is there to say. He was originally appointed to the commission but resigned shortly after due to an obligation as part of the commission, to disclose the names etc...of his private firms clients.

Are you insinuating there was more to it, and if so, based on what evidence?

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
post #103 is an unrelated post by DC concerning Atta and the pilots.

Regarding Kissinger, what more is there to say. He was originally appointed to the commission but resigned shortly after due to an obligation as part of the commission, to disclose the names etc...of his private firms clients.

Are you insinuating there was more to it, and if so, based on what evidence?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Sry, fixed post #....

What kind of conflict of interest with what client? He did not want to reveal his client list; I wonder who on that list would cause a conflict. What is Kissinger & Associates anyway.....?

Journalistic evidence exists that Bush first attempted to avoid any investigation, and then conceded and chose Kissinger to head the "independent" investigation. How 'independent' is the man who made the most non-official visits to the whitehouse during Bush's terms?
 
I agree with the following,

1. Bush and his admin, for a good while, tried to avoid an investigation into 9/11, beyond the original FBI/CIA investigation.

2. Henry Kissinger and his firm LIKELY have some less then admirable clients, some of which may in fact HATE the USA.

WHat we likely disagree on, are the probably motives for (A) avoiding a commission investigation and (B) why Kissinger wished to keep his clients names a secret.

Where you see iluminati cabal NWO cover up of the 9/11 attacks, I see cover up of incompetence/asleep at the switch and protection of reputation.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I agree with the following,

1. Bush and his admin, for a good while, tried to avoid an investigation into 9/11, beyond the original FBI/CIA investigation.

2. Henry Kissinger and his firm LIKELY have some less then admirable clients, some of which may in fact HATE the USA.

WHat we likely disagree on, are the probably motives for (A) avoiding a commission investigation and (B) why Kissinger wished to keep his clients names a secret.

Where you see iluminati cabal NWO cover up of the 9/11 attacks, I see cover up of incompetence/asleep at the switch and protection of reputation.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
My bold....

So you believe they were covering up their incompetence and protecting their reputations (2004 election played a big role). At whose expense was this covering-up and protecting done?


Let me also just say....you started with the Dan Brown references, not me.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
My bold....

So you believe they were covering up their incompetence and protecting their reputations (2004 election played a big role). At whose expense was this covering-up and protecting done?


Let me also just say....you started with the Dan Brown references, not me.
Click to expand...

I stand by my comments. As for Dan Brown, i have read angels and demons as well as davinci, and i am not sure to what you are referring.

TAM:)
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Say, I need directions to that Starbucks, NiceGuy. Can you help?
Click to expand...

Which starbucks are you referring to. I, of course, only drink free-trade coffee. Just go downtown anywhere......or you could try google.

TAM......the iluminati; come on, don't play stupid...
 
T.A.M. said:
I stand by my comments. As for Dan Brown, i have read angels and demons as well as davinci, and i am not sure to what you are referring.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You stand by your comments? Then answer to them....

(By any name,) Why is a cover-up and the protection of reputation okay in your books? Is this a democratic process?
 
ImANiceGuy said:
Why is a cover-up and the protection of reputation okay in your books? Is this a democratic process?
Click to expand...

Where did anyone say it was okay? The worst way in which truthers have polluted the discourse over 9/11 is that, by making up fantasy crimes and demanding their investigation, they discredit any allegations of real, demonstrable wrongdoing by the Bush administration. We know that the Iraq war was started as a result of, at best, wildly over-optimistic and biased interpretation of intelligence on WMD. We know that the Bush administration stalled over holding a proper inquiry into the response to the 9/11 attacks, and attempted - unsuccessfully, fortunately - to neuter the inquiry that they eventually were forced to hold. But these legitimate concerns are overwhelmed with nonsense about secret cabals, impossible demolition devices and holographic airliners, and the lunacy of the latter is ascribed to the former by association. So keep it up, truthers; you're the best friends the Bush administration has left.

Dave
 
Oystein said:
You have the guts to implicate, by name, 124 individuals with the murder of close to 3000 people. Thats's more that 20 murder victims per person on your list.

Surely, you have at least some information whatsoever that could possibly be construed as at least faintly shedding some light of suspicion on at least one person on the list. Right? If so, I would like to know that information, and its source.

If you cannot provide any such information, then clearly you are engaging in libel. So please do not dodge this urgent request for sourced information implicating at least one person on your list with the criminal acts of 9/11, or else I will have to call you a libeling fraud henceforth.
Alternatively, you may retract your false and unwarranted accusations.
Click to expand...

Bumping this for ImA"Nice"Guy

I read the entire thread, and you have dodged the request to supply at least one piece of evidence to imply at least one person on the list of those who YOU accuse to be mass murderers.

I still call that libel.

Will you please retract your entire accusation of these 124 individuals, or start providing evidence? Thanks!
 
Oystein said:
Bumping this for ImA"Nice"Guy

I read the entire thread, and you have dodged the request to supply at least one piece of evidence to imply at least one person on the list of those who YOU accuse to be mass murderers.

I still call that libel.

Will you please retract your entire accusation of these 124 individuals, or start providing evidence? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Effective use of bolding, imo. I've used it below as well....

If I get a question respectful of what I've previously stated, then I'll respond.

ImANiceGuy said:
Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....
Click to expand...
 
ImANiceGuy said:
Effective use of bolding, imo. I've used it below as well....

If I get a question respectful of what I've previously stated, then I'll respond.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Dodge noted.

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy
Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....
Click to expand...

I did not ask for evidence that proves they are ALL murderers. I asked for evidence that suggests that at least ONE if them is a murderer. Haven't seen any so far.

Yet, you list 124 names and suggest that some or all of them are mass murderers. Surely, you must have SOME evidence that informs this opinion? If so, cough it up. If not, please retract (ETA: the entire list).
 
Oystein said:
I did not ask for evidence that proves they are ALL murderers. I asked for evidence that suggests that at least ONE if them is a murderer. Haven't seen any so far.

Yet, you list 124 names and suggest that some or all of them are mass murderers. Surely, you must have SOME evidence that informs this opinion? If so, cough it up. If not, please retract (ETA: the entire list).
Click to expand...

one sec....doesnt ETA stand for estimated time of arrival?

Also, I have not suggested that any individual on that list is a murderer, only that they are part of the Global Elite. If you can show me that a member is no longer a Global Elite, I'll retract their name just for you. Finally, stop asking me for "hard" "concrete" evidence; you're being silly. Read the commission report if you want evidence; post at JREF if you want to debate the anonymous hypothesis of a Truther.

Anyway, should I start with Rockefeller or Perle?

please, please try reading and comprehending instead of capitalizing WORDS and bolding.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
one sec....doesnt ETA stand for estimated time of arrival?
Click to expand...

In the context of travelling, yes. In the context of posting in a forum, no. Here, it means "Edited To Add", meaning that I edited my post, but did not change any content, only added the part after the "ETA", for the benefit of anybody who might at the same be replying to my post.

ImANiceGuy said:
Also, I have not suggested that any individual on that list is a murderer, only that they are part of the Global Elite.
Click to expand...

You suggested "that the Arab highjackers were manipulated by external forces to commit the attacks for the benefit of the global elite". Now since no one would do such a thing without anybody within the "global elite" knowing about this endeavour, and since we are here to discuss theories about who did 9/11 and how, it seems reasonable that if you list names of members of said "global elite", you mean to imply that at least some of them are in the know, i.e. conspirators to mass murder. Otherwise, why would you even name anybody, if they have nothing at all to do with 9/11?

ImANiceGuy said:
If you can show me that a member is no longer a Global Elite, I'll retract their name just for you. Finally, stop asking me for "hard" "concrete" evidence; you're being silly.
Click to expand...

Oh. Asking for hard evidence when putting blame for mass murder on a named group of humans is silly? Okidoki... :boggled: What jurisdiction and legal system did you grow up in? North Korea or the like maybe?


ImANiceGuy said:
Read the commission report if you want evidence;
Click to expand...

No. It's your hypothesis. It is therefore YOUR job to point us to the quoted and referenced passages in the commission report that put the blame on any of the 124 named individuals.

ImANiceGuy said:
post at JREF if you want to debate the anonymous hypothesis of a Truther.
Click to expand...

Urrr are you talking about yourself there?

ImANiceGuy said:
Anyway, should I start with Rockefeller or Perle?
Click to expand...

Don't ask me. Start with whomever you want, but please be prepared to provide evidence (referenced quotes...) as soon as you name anyone individually with the implication they might be culpable in the mass murder of close to 3000 innocent civilians.

So what and where is your evidence that puts any blame whatsoever for 9/11 on Rockefeller (which Rockefeller?) or Pearle?

ImANiceGuy said:
please, please try reading and comprehending instead of capitalizing WORDS and bolding.
Click to expand...

Again, we are discussing here who did 9/11 (and how and why). When you list 124 individuals by name, don't act surprised if your listing these individuals is construed as you suspecting their individual involvement in the commitment of mass murder. That would be hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Oystein, I'm only able to provide speculation, coincidence, probability and inference in support of my hypothesis. I'm afraid that the 'evidence' you're looking for is unattainable. All that can be done is to test my hypothesis against known evidence...

Ask me a specific question and you'll get a specific answer...

taken from rense.com; evidence of influence in the Media

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

From Rockefeller's 2002 memoirs; evidence of geo-political engineering/influence

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
 
ImANiceGuy said:
Sorry Oystein, I'm only able to provide speculation, coincidence, probability and inference in support of my hypothesis. I'm afraid that the 'evidence' you're looking for is unattainable. All that can be done is to test my hypothesis against known evidence...
Click to expand...

In other words: You have nothing. Nothing whatsoever. Nothing at all.

Thanks for admitting the Big Nothingness.

Case closed?

ImANiceGuy said:
Ask me a specific question and you'll get a specific answer...
Click to expand...

Ok, specific questions:

Do you mention David Rockefeller specifically, individually and by name in the context of this thread and this subforum because you suspect and want to convince us that David Rockefeller, specifically and individually, is a conspirator to the murder of nearly 3000 humans on 9/11/2001?

If not, why do you mention him at all in the context of 9/11?

If yes, what specific information makes you believe so and confirms your suspicion as plausible evidence? Because no part of the rest of your post relates in any way specifically to 9/11.

ImANiceGuy said:
taken from rense.com; evidence of influence in the Media

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

From Rockefeller's 2002 memoirs; evidence of geo-political engineering/influence

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Click to expand...
 
ImANiceGuy said:
Sorry Oystein, I'm only able to provide speculation, coincidence, probability and inference in support of my hypothesis. I'm afraid that the 'evidence' you're looking for is unattainable.
Click to expand...
Well, how conveeeenient!

Suppose I ask a couple friends of mine to have a little chat with you about fooling around with my wife. What's that? You say you haven't? That I can't prove you did? Silly rabbit, why should such an unattainable detail get in the way of what I know to be true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom