Loose Change - Part II

[Pardalis]

The head and in frontal attack on an English writer that the character of this point is therefore another method for the letters that the time of who ever told the problem for an unexpected.

Sound familiar? I think Sentinel is just a probabilistic finite state machine spitting out English words at random.

Wow, that sounds alot like him.

I have him on "ignore", but you guys keep quoting his posts...

 

[RandFan]

Do you agree with RandFan that there was no case for an official federal investigation "USA vs. Unknown"?

Not sure what you're referring to -- please be more specific if you want my agreement. Besides... relevance? I stated in my last reply that there was an investigation, and that its conclusion seems perfectly correct. You haven't challenged that assertion.

Bingo!

 

[Pardalis]

Yeah and, I mean... we've all seen UNDER SIEGE II, right ? If Seagal can survive THAT explosion, then everything's possible!!!1111!!

There was a second one?

 

[Gravy]

Ladies and gentlemen...

[drumroll]

[/drumroll] The kilik has landed:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6017

I have heard much of this "killik." He certainly doesn't disappoint. Does he stick around for discussion at all?

 

[Childlike Empress]

You chastised us for saying that you had any theory at all. What's going on?

Call it suspicion and spare me your semantics, al... - sorry - Gravy.

Video and text released by al-Jazeera of Bin Laden claiming responsibility, November, 2004.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Please do your homework.

Please learn to read:

Bin Laden f.e. denied his envolvement in 9/11 several times between the attacks and the "confession"-video.

 

[RandFan]

If you want a theory-of-everything-that-happened-on-911 from me, i have to disappoint you.

???

Can't you just pick something substantive and make a case for that point? Conspiracy theory is all about the dots. Connect the dots. Throw up enough dots that appear to be connected and by golly there must be something to all of those dots.

No. Questions are not answers. If you have a question then go answer it. If you can't then who cares? If all you are interested in is questions then the world is full of conspiracies with lots of questions. I gave you a list before. If you want another let me know and I will give you a comprehensive one and you can spend your life studying questions.

 

[Gravy]

Call it suspicion and spare me your semantics, al... - sorry - Gravy.
Please learn to read:

I did read that. But the jist of your comments was the fact of bin Laden's denials and the legitimacy of the sources, correct? If not, then what were you trying to say?

 

[Pardalis]

Empress, why do you take a fanatic terrorist to his word?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Now that I have looked things up, do you deny that Bin Laden ever accepted responsibility? Yes or no?

R., that's not the point. We all rely on the media reports and i have the opinion that most of them are not trustworthy. Ok, in the first time after 9/11 we had a Bin Laden saying that he wasn't involved in the attacks. Why should he deny it? From his point of view 9/11 has been the greatest victory one can imagine. Months after the attack, he suddenly changed his statements and decided to publish them mainly through US-Government-Sources.

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many uncoherent pieces in the official 911-Story.

 

[Pardalis]

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many uncoherent pieces in the official 911-Story.

Why do we have to expect Bin Laden to be coherent?

 

[Childlike Empress]

???

Can't you just pick something substantive and make a case for that point? Conspiracy theory is all about the dots. Connect the dots. Throw up enough dots that appear to be connected and by golly there must be something to all of those dots.

No. Questions are not answers. If you have a question then go answer it. If you can't then who cares? If all you are interested in is questions then the world is full of conspiracies with lots of questions. I gave you a list before. If you want another let me know and I will give you a comprehensive one and you can spend your life studying questions.

Just trying to present some dots here. The goal is that enough intelligent people try to connect them.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Why do we have to expect Bin Laden to be coherent?

Because he's an evil genius who planned and executed 911?

 

[Pardalis]

Just trying to present some dots here. The goal is that enough paranoid people try to connect them.

 

[Gravy]

You might as well link to old Warner Bros. cartoons as evidence for life on Mars.

Please present your evidence that those cartoons were faked.

 

[MikeW]

There was only one occasion bin Ladin actively denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, in the Daily Ummat interview. Note that this was a newspaper interview only, and was not carried out in person: the newspaper reportedly gave some questions to the Taliban, who came back later with some written answers. So given that the "inside job" theorists are so quick to assume the multiple other occasions when he or other al Qaeda implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility, are fake, why is it that they automatically assume this is genuine? Is it not possible that someone within the Taliban issued fake answers in the hope to at least buy more time before they were attacked? Is it not also possible that bin Ladin was pressured to lie on their behalf, for the same reason? How about the idea that he took this tack initially because he didn't want to give America a pretext for war, and so hoped they would suffer more politically if they did attack Afghanistan?

Because the statements issued after that were not in any way clear "denials" of the attacks, at all, no matter how desperately the inside job theorists want you to believe that. For an example, see "news bbc co uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636 stm" (replace the spaces with dots) & ask yourself exactly how he's distancing himself from 9/11 here.

 

[Pardalis]

Bin Laden's an extremist, I don't care whatever he says.

 

[RandFan]

R., that's not the point. We all rely on the media reports and i have the opinion that most of them are not trustworthy. Ok, in the first time after 9/11 we had a Bin Laden saying that he wasn't involved in the attacks. Why should he deny it? From his point of view 9/11 has been the greatest victory one can imagine. Months after the attack, he suddenly changed his statements and decided to publish them mainly through US-Government-Sources.

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many incoherent pieces in the official 911-Story.

?

Do you have a coherent theory? The weight of the evidence is behind Al Qaeda and the hijackers. Is it possible that Bin Laden wasn't directly involved? Sure. On the other hand, while your logic is reasonable but is it really impossible that he at first didn't want to admit his involvement? Do you really know his motives?

Again, your finding questions of a complex operation. That's fine but you have nothing beyond questions and we have good evidence that 9/11 is as it appears to be.

I'm a big fan of real life detective shows no cable. There are many of them. One thing that strikes me again and again is that not all of the lose ends are tied up. Not all of the questions are answered. Not all of the incongruent pieces of the puzzle are fit together even after the perpetrator has admitted his crime and led detectives to the bodies of his victims.

I've also had an opportunity to look at many conspiracies, IRS, Tri-Lateral commission, JFK, I'm too tired to think of them all and they all have incoherent, incongruent data and unanswered questions.

So what? Where's the beef?

 

[RandFan]

Because he's an evil genius who planned and executed 911?

I'm sorry, but that really is not a good answer. It certainly doesn't square with history. We can make a list of incoherent evil geniuses.

 

[Gravy]

R., that's not the point. We all rely on the media reports and i have the opinion that most of them are not trustworthy. Ok, in the first time after 9/11 we had a Bin Laden saying that he wasn't involved in the attacks. Why should he deny it? From his point of view 9/11 has been the greatest victory one can imagine. Months after the attack, he suddenly changed his statements and decided to publish them mainly through US-Government-Sources.

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many uncoherent pieces in the official 911-Story.

What's not "coherent" about bin Laden's actions? He had every reason to dissemble at first, when the U.S. seemed to be hot on his trail. Since then, he has found an effective way to hide. It's nearly five years down the road. I'm not surprised that bin Laden occasionally thumbs his nose at the U.S., and attempts to buoy the resistance.

I'm not aware that his statements have been published mainly through U.S. government sources. Do you have evidence of that?

 

[RandFan]

Just trying to present some dots here. The goal is that enough intelligent people try to connect them.

Go back and read my post. There are tons and tons of questions throughout history.

Intelligent people are going to go with the weight of the evidence. One more time, questions are not answers. A bunch of dots are not evidence. If you are looking for someone to connect dots that fly in the face of the evidence then you are in the wrong forum.

You might want to check out the loose change forum. They love connecting dots. If you've got any Jewish dots then they will really love you, however government dots are their bread and butter but trust me on this, any dot will do.