• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hustler woo

skepticalcriticalguy said:
Of course, it would help to close the case for the government if they would provide the evidence that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaida. The FBI admits they don't have enough. That's disturbing.
Click to expand...
Welcome, SCG. You'll notice that we will ask you to back your claims with evidence, and we will tend do remind you that questions and opinions do not count as evidence.

Your assertion that the "FBI admits they don't have enough" is false as it pertains to al Qaeda. If you believe that, I strongly recommend that you read the 9/11 Commission report and its ancillary staff statements and reports. And of course, people like KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh are in custody and have apparently provided a wealth of information.

The FBI did say that they don't have enough evidence to directly tie bin Laden to 9/11. His many confessions would not be admissible in court. In addition to the evidence that he committed the crimes for which he is indicted in the U.S., I believe it is prudent to take him at his word that he will continue his murderous ways.

Do you think his calls for jihad against the U.S. are sincere? Do you think he, and Islamic jihadists, present a threat to U.S. life and property?
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Also, consider that although breaking a story of this magnitude should win the Pulitzer, the NYT (or any other MSM outlet) would be torched for their failure to break it sooner (read: complicity).
Click to expand...
That's nonsense. You're certainly off to an irrational start here.
 
"alternative" media is a bunk phrase, just as "alternative" medicine is a bunk phrase. Either the news source follows the standards and practices of reputable journalism or they do not.
 
Peer Review

Now that they have been in Hustler they can claim their works have been

"Peer Reviewed"
 
The Almond said:
I'm curious about this statement. Do you not believe that the NIST theory, which has followed all 4 of my steps, is the most logical theory in explaining the collapse of the WTC towers? Or are your criticisms directed largely at the administration and the intelligence community? Do you believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7?
Click to expand...

I believe that the NIST report was limited in its scope. I want to know where the core went. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they only covered from the hit to the initiation of collapse. I have not read the entire report, but have read both sides' analysis, and several key parts.

And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7. There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion. And as I mentioned, I don't claim to know beyond a doubt. But here's a hint; I have, for years, read incessantly about Intel agencies and rogue networks in our government.

If the FBI were interested in framing bin Laden, how could they have too little evidence? If you're fabricating it all, why not fabricate everything?
Click to expand...

Consider the possibility that the deed was done, partly from within and partly from the outside, and our President was told who to blame. And consider that OBL could have Bin set up as the patsy this way also.

The one thing that doesn't make sense is: why would Bush falsely blame a known CIA agent and his family business partner?! Surely Michael Moore could dig that info up! (Actually, it was already dug up; Moore borrowed the work of others there). So it must have Bin Bin, right?

I don't buy that. Israeli "art students" tracked the alleged highjackers throughout the country. Much has been written about Atta et al's drug trafficking ties.

There is a lot to think about here. I think the answer to what happened lies more in studying rogue spy networks than it does in controlled demolition, thermate vs. particle beams, etc.

(I know I'm going to get scolded for not providing proof. I wasn't there!)

The one member of the "movement" who's writing and speaking is fascinating is Webster Tarpley. I don't think he has that ego problem some of the others have. Maybe I'm blind. But I do recommend reading his stuff and hearing his radio interviews.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7. There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion.
Click to expand...

Why not just say what you do think happened right now?
 
skepticalcriticalguy,

A piece of advice. No charge. Don't try to convince us of any grand issues. Start small. Pick one thing that you can prove through objective, verfiable evidence that supports your case. Once agreement is made on that point, move on to the next.
 
Gravy said:
The FBI did say that they don't have enough evidence to directly tie bin Laden to 9/11. His many confessions would not be admissible in court. In addition to the evidence that he committed the crimes for which he is indicted in the U.S., I believe it is prudent to take him at his word that he will continue his murderous ways.

Do you think his calls for jihad against the U.S. are sincere? Do you think he, and Islamic jihadists, present a threat to U.S. life and property?
Click to expand...

I don't speak Arabic, so I haven't personally heard the confessions you are referring to. Am I to assume you are fluent in Arabic? And did the translation correctly? (wink) (smiley's aren't working for me yet).

I think his calls for Jihad are a scam. I think he is still what he was, since the 70s; a CIA asset/agent. And Bush business partner. But you asked me what I think here! So no, no proof. Evidence? there is plenty written about this. I don't think I can post links yet.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
skepticalcriticalguy,

A piece of advice. No charge. Don't try to convince us of any grand issues. Start small. Pick one thing that you can prove through objective, verfiable evidence that supports your case. Once agreement is made on that point, move on to the next.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but I keep getting asked what I "think" and "believe." And I also see no point in posting something that has already been discussed 80 times here, so I'll read some threads and see what's been covered.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
I don't speak Arabic, so I haven't personally heard the confessions you are referring to. Am I to assume you are fluent in Arabic? And did the translation correctly? (wink) (smiley's aren't working for me yet).

I think his calls for Jihad are a scam. I think he is still what he was, since the 70s; a CIA asset/agent.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of evidence against such a relationship, and little for.

And Bush business partner. <snip>
Click to expand...
Nope, that was the bin Laden family: the one that disowned Osama back in '93.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
That said, I am intrigued by the many recent articles in the "alternate" media that discuss the possibility that we have a Mossad-riddled Pentagon and State Dept. But I see if anybody even shows an interest in discussing that topic here, they are ridiculed and accused of blaming "the jooooooooooose." (Was that too many o's?)
Click to expand...

I'm curious, why are you more inclined to believe that 9/11 was caused by Jews and Americans instead of the 19 Muslim Integrists from the Al qaeda network?

Do you base your discrimination on faith, racial prejudice or facts?

If you choose the last option, please show us.
 
Gravy said:
That's nonsense. You're certainly off to an irrational start here.
Click to expand...

Why is that? Isn't it the job of the media to watchdog the government? What I said was if inside job turned out to be true, wouldn't they have been remiss, even criminal, in not even investigating the possibility all this time?
 
Pardalis said:
Of course you don't, you're an American, the world doesn't exist beyond your borders.

Wouldn't you think "Le Figaro" or "Le Monde", or any other news outlet oustide the US be interested in this scoop?
Click to expand...

Ah, the "ugly American" thing. No, I try to read the foreign press when I can! There is only so much time in a day, and I don't know as much about it! I don't need to be attacked for that.

(Now I'll get attacked by Americans saying I have no business reading the foreign press, because they hate us, or something).
 
Pardalis said:
I'm curious, why are you more inclined to believe that 9/11 was caused by Jews and Americans instead of the 19 Muslim Integrists from the Al qaeda network?

Do you base your discrimination on faith, racial prejudice or facts?

If you choose the last option, please show us.
Click to expand...

Another fallacy. Are these my only choices?

First of all, it's not discrimination. And it's got nothing to do with faith or race.

As I mentioned before, I have spent years reading incessantly about intelligence agencies and rogue networks.

I wonder if your belief that it was the Arabs might have to do with faith and race! Again, the perfect patsies; we've been conditioned for years to believe that Arabs are crazy, after all.
 
Do you believe Muslim Integrists do not exist? Or do you believe they are incapable of committing terrorist acts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom