Ed Moving On is coming.
- Thread starter mrfreeze
- Start date
You can post links, just remove the http://www. bit (and I'm sure a mod will then change it to a proper link).
Scientologist
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 196
Russell, you have done one thing that no other CT at jref has done and that is actually answer questions asked of you, so I do appreciate it. With that said, let's continue, shall we? Oh, and the personal insults will stop at my last post.
Also, let it be said that I appreciate your clarity of which position you take.
A. Link please for the assertion?
B. So, if I may sum up your argument, you believe that the hijackers were setup by a higher power and then remote-controlled into a building? How do you account for some of the video-tape wills that the hijackers made?
A. What about the other phone calls? Taking issue with one phone call but believing all of the others were real should be a red flag for you, I would assume.
B. Which conflicting stories are you referring to? How are the logistics of swiping a credit card in question to you? What specifically are you talking about here? You doubt people have the wherewithall to swipe their CC's to talk to their loved ones in their last moments?
C. If there was a real conspiracy, why have any phone calls at all? Couldn't they have just released an audiotape with the terrorists' threats and called it a day?
D. What makes you qualified to know where the pilot was standing or why he would be standing there? Do you know the particular personality of this pilot or what reactions he might take?
A. I'm sorry what? Technology adaptations? Please clarify what you are suggesting here? Evidence would be nice too but, obviously, never expected of loopy **** like this.
B. At least you acknowledge weakness in your arguments. That makes me think there is hope with you yet.
Happy to hear that. Thank you.
Again, good to know and understand. However, again, I will mention that several hijackers made wills, indicating their readiness to die.
A. Perhaps Bin Laden didn't deny his involvement at all? The source on that information is highly questionable.
B. Assuming the source were accurate, however, Bin Laden could be interested in denying involvement initially as he could have been attempting to save the Taliban in Afghanistan.
C. The idea that he is still free is unrealistic? How? Why?
D. Can you clarify which doubts are unrealistic? Can you clarify why the CT side always shows one shot of a video when the rest of it quite clearly depicts Bin Laden? Do you feel this is fair representation of the truth?
A. What evidence AT ALL makes you believe this? You're basically saying the NWO pulled off 9/11 but you're giving no factual evidence as to why you believe things happened so differently from the way they were told to have happened.
B. If you believe some of the people who were part of it "now see the picture," why have none of them come forward?
C. Why has the military not arrested these people? Why are we dependant on internet faux professors and theorists to tell us who the REAL culprits are?
good to know.
Again you believe these things without any evidence or facts, just based on speculation alone?
Ok. Again thanks for your clarification of position. I look forward to the inevitable change in mind you will have once all questions have been addressed.
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,218
Yeah, I'll try to find something on the internet and add it if I do. To let you know where I heard that, I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel that said as much on the last 9/11 anniversary.
ETA:
Bell is right, it is The Base. My mistake and thanks for the correction Bell.
Anyway, here's something I found quickly:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
Under the heading "The War on Terrorism" it claims that Al-Zarqawi officially changed the name of his organization to Al Qaeda when he joined up, so it appears that the name was offcial amongst at least some of them.
Also, this: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/al.zarqawi.profile/index.html
OBL officially refers to al-Zarqawi as "The prince of al-Qaeda in Iraq" and he himself uses that title if you were looking for an official endorsement of the name.
Last edited:
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
I think it would be cool to learn how to say "All your base are belong to us" in Arabic.
"All Al Qada Allah Ballahng To Allah" just ain't gonna cut it.
DR
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
An absurd position to be sure, but unlike you, he doesn't appear to be a promoter of religious and ethnic hatred and a sympathizer of one of the most murderous regimes in history.
Nor does he appear to have used terror tactics to intimidate those with differing viewpoints as you have with Ms. McClatchey.
RUSS:
I can imagine you are getting bogged down with reading all the posts. I posted a few questions about your believes earlier. You didnt seem to address them. I will assume it was an oversight, which is fine, but I think for sanity sake we should limit the number of people throwing questions at you, or it will just be chaos. I am more than willing to step aside and let you debate one on one with Scientologist. If you get the time though, please take a moment to go back and if possible address soem of the questions I asked (they were a little less on specifics than Scientologists).
Thanks
TAM
I can imagine you are getting bogged down with reading all the posts. I posted a few questions about your believes earlier. You didnt seem to address them. I will assume it was an oversight, which is fine, but I think for sanity sake we should limit the number of people throwing questions at you, or it will just be chaos. I am more than willing to step aside and let you debate one on one with Scientologist. If you get the time though, please take a moment to go back and if possible address soem of the questions I asked (they were a little less on specifics than Scientologists).
Thanks
TAM
Niether do I.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Then why were you diseminating nazi propaganda on the LC forums?
Why give white supremacists a leg up if you don't believe in thier cause?
I wasn't.
negativ
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,904
Hi, Russell. I want to ask you a few things about some of your bullet points. I am mainly interested because I am curious about the mental processes you go through to reach some of your opinions, conclusions, or suspicions. Note that I am asking purely out of curiosity, and not out of any desire to necessarily prove you wrong or even debate.
In your opinion, how would one go about falsely believing onesself to be a hijacker?
* All related evidence and documentation aside, what, in your opinion, makes a subsequent admission of guilt less credible than an initial denial?
* Which other terrorist groups initially claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks? How about for the OKC bombing? Note that I don't know the answers to these questions myself, just wondering.
* How is it determined what constitutes "normal" behavior for a terrrorist group?
* What, specifically, is "unrealistic" about bin Laden remaining free?
We used to have fire drills in elementary school, and one time the school cafeteria actually caught fire during the fire drill. That was over 25 years ago, and to this day I can't see how the drill and the real fire are related.
ETA: I'm posting this stuff from work, and it takes me ages to complete a post as I must also simultaneously get work-stuff done, so feel free to ignore me if these questions have already been asked between the time I started and the time I actually clicked "save". It seems at least a coupoe of them have.
(Bolding mine).
In your opinion, how would one go about falsely believing onesself to be a hijacker?
* All related evidence and documentation aside, what, in your opinion, makes a subsequent admission of guilt less credible than an initial denial?
* Which other terrorist groups initially claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks? How about for the OKC bombing? Note that I don't know the answers to these questions myself, just wondering.
* How is it determined what constitutes "normal" behavior for a terrrorist group?
* What, specifically, is "unrealistic" about bin Laden remaining free?
I can't understand why a drill for a scenario would preclude the actual scenario taking place, or vice versa. Either the two are coincidental or they are not. If they are not, what possible purpose would it serve to have a drill, and then do the thing you're drilling for? If a "false flag" is simply the idea of, to be blunt, pulling a stunt and blaming it on someone else, what is the drill for? I would like to understand the thinking behind this. I remember on the LC forums, there was a post where someone linked a news story (mainstream press) about a scheduled emergency response drill in Chicago. Lots of the CT-minded people posted things like, "omg false flag, don't be surprised if there's a 'terrorist attack' in Chicago on that day!!".
We used to have fire drills in elementary school, and one time the school cafeteria actually caught fire during the fire drill. That was over 25 years ago, and to this day I can't see how the drill and the real fire are related.
ETA: I'm posting this stuff from work, and it takes me ages to complete a post as I must also simultaneously get work-stuff done, so feel free to ignore me if these questions have already been asked between the time I started and the time I actually clicked "save". It seems at least a coupoe of them have.
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
See? There ya go!
Now you're linkable.
We're a subtle bunch sometimes.
Depends on mood/ditto, but there's a chicken and rice casserole I relaly like/13-just because no one else ever wants it.
Now you're linkable.
We're a subtle bunch sometimes.Depends on mood/ditto, but there's a chicken and rice casserole I relaly like/13-just because no one else ever wants it.
Scientologist,
Thank you for giving me a fair chance. This is an emotional topic. I will be honest with you guys and respond to facts. I am here and have said before that this forum has more honesty, facts and humor than my experiences in the past.
1 a.) ""The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site.
The hijackers' remains will be turned over to the FBI and held as evidence, FBI spokesman Chris Murray said. After the investigation is concluded, the State Department will decide what is to be done with the remains."
washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61202-2001Nov20¬Found=true
1 b.) I believe some form of technology was involved if my assumption about Hani is correct. The tapes would be accounted for if they believed they were real hijackers as I mentioned. If this scenario has validity to it then yes "higher powers" were involved.
2 a.) I have to say I am pretty much specialized in the Pentagon and have only spent a little time on WTC7. I can not talk about the other calls with any substantiation.
2 b.) Here is a CT article on it that raises the points I mention in fair detail about Barbara Olson's call. vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm
2 c.) Everybody involved may have been experiencing things with no knowledge other than what they were experiencing in the microcosm. In that case everything is real except for how it happened in the macrocosm. One quote from Operation Northwoods is interesting in this respect, "The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew." I do find it unusual that Mark Bingham introduced himself to his mom by first and last name and then that the movie United 93 chose not to portray that to the public. This is said with respect and is only a matter of fact.
2 d.) It is in the record of Barbara Olsen's call. IF they are referring to Captain Burlingame I am inferring my opinion from his size, anti-terrorism and military background. He was a professional with over 100 combat missions in Gulf 1. He was the assistant to the assistant Secretary of Defense as well. Until 1996 he was an anti-terrorism liaison to the Pentagon performing duties in Naval Intelligence as a reserve officer. He was a dedicated patriot. If you read all of his memorials you can see where his family implies some surprise about him being overpowered. Flight 77 did not perform any unusual maneuvers by the flight records we now have to indicate an attempt to thwart the hijacking, did not send a transponder hijacking code or make any radio broadcast at all even though the radio was very easy to activate. I do not know the regulations so you can inform me here, but I also believe that proper hijacking protocol is not to go to the back of the plane. There is also an irony to his story and a subsequent disrespect by the USG that I find disgraceful.
3 a.) The details of the possibilities here I am still looking into. It will be a couple of days before I can link you to the preliminary ideas I have. Perhaps that can be an individual thread for us to discuss. The best I can say is that I have a LOT to learn before this is any kind of a defensible position.
3 b.) There is hope for me. If I am ever factually convinced of the official story in its entirety then I will be the most effective representative for it since I have completely emerged myself in the other side. I was asked by the Secretary of Defense's personal historian face to face in DC for information I have on the Pentagon since she was having problems finding information too. I was more than willing to help. That was obviously squelched after the context of my position was understood. I told her I could save her 2 years if I turned everything I had over to her and only asked in return that I receive one uncompressed frame off the original analog video from the security camera with the aircraft in it. I gave her my name, address, phone number and asked her to present it to Mr. Rumsfeld herself. I don't recall if this was on tape or not but I believe it was recorded with witnesses present. I may be able to produce that conversation. I will check on it. My offer was never accepted. I am actually looking for the real answers.
7 a.) There will be a very interesting clip in LCFC from the MSM claiming that.
7b.) I don't believe he would have any sense after actually working with the US previously that a denial would prevent the consequences. The magnitude of the event in my opinion was recognizable to all of us from the beginning. He is not naive.
7 c.) The best documentary that tells the truth about why he escaped is the Dark Side. It was a pathetic struggle between Pentagon control of the situation versus Intelligence control. Inexcusable in such a drastic situation. pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
7 d.) My doubts about the video are purely subjective. I do not trust much of the 9/11 "truth" movement. They have betrayed themselves for many reasons and have spent a significant amount of energy portraying me as an agent for my honesty.
Not speculation - probabilty within my definition of it. I can't justify the math here just my belief.
Giuliani was having a business breakfast meeting in his room at the Great Eastern Hotel, close to Liverpool Street station when the bombs went off:
The perfectly aligned drills and the presence of former Mayor Giuiliani (security guru now) a couple of blocks away exceeds my personal tolerance for coincidence. Coincidence stops somewhere is my personal belief. Have you seen the BBC interview with one of the managers of the drills? It is pretty eye opening.
globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/070705londonterrorexercise.wmv
Now I can link so it will take me some time to go back and answer the original 5 questions. Please be patient.
Russell
Thank you for giving me a fair chance. This is an emotional topic. I will be honest with you guys and respond to facts. I am here and have said before that this forum has more honesty, facts and humor than my experiences in the past.
1 a.) ""The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site.
The hijackers' remains will be turned over to the FBI and held as evidence, FBI spokesman Chris Murray said. After the investigation is concluded, the State Department will decide what is to be done with the remains."
washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61202-2001Nov20¬Found=true
1 b.) I believe some form of technology was involved if my assumption about Hani is correct. The tapes would be accounted for if they believed they were real hijackers as I mentioned. If this scenario has validity to it then yes "higher powers" were involved.
2 a.) I have to say I am pretty much specialized in the Pentagon and have only spent a little time on WTC7. I can not talk about the other calls with any substantiation.
2 b.) Here is a CT article on it that raises the points I mention in fair detail about Barbara Olson's call. vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm
2 c.) Everybody involved may have been experiencing things with no knowledge other than what they were experiencing in the microcosm. In that case everything is real except for how it happened in the macrocosm. One quote from Operation Northwoods is interesting in this respect, "The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew." I do find it unusual that Mark Bingham introduced himself to his mom by first and last name and then that the movie United 93 chose not to portray that to the public. This is said with respect and is only a matter of fact.
2 d.) It is in the record of Barbara Olsen's call. IF they are referring to Captain Burlingame I am inferring my opinion from his size, anti-terrorism and military background. He was a professional with over 100 combat missions in Gulf 1. He was the assistant to the assistant Secretary of Defense as well. Until 1996 he was an anti-terrorism liaison to the Pentagon performing duties in Naval Intelligence as a reserve officer. He was a dedicated patriot. If you read all of his memorials you can see where his family implies some surprise about him being overpowered. Flight 77 did not perform any unusual maneuvers by the flight records we now have to indicate an attempt to thwart the hijacking, did not send a transponder hijacking code or make any radio broadcast at all even though the radio was very easy to activate. I do not know the regulations so you can inform me here, but I also believe that proper hijacking protocol is not to go to the back of the plane. There is also an irony to his story and a subsequent disrespect by the USG that I find disgraceful.
3 a.) The details of the possibilities here I am still looking into. It will be a couple of days before I can link you to the preliminary ideas I have. Perhaps that can be an individual thread for us to discuss. The best I can say is that I have a LOT to learn before this is any kind of a defensible position.
3 b.) There is hope for me. If I am ever factually convinced of the official story in its entirety then I will be the most effective representative for it since I have completely emerged myself in the other side. I was asked by the Secretary of Defense's personal historian face to face in DC for information I have on the Pentagon since she was having problems finding information too. I was more than willing to help. That was obviously squelched after the context of my position was understood. I told her I could save her 2 years if I turned everything I had over to her and only asked in return that I receive one uncompressed frame off the original analog video from the security camera with the aircraft in it. I gave her my name, address, phone number and asked her to present it to Mr. Rumsfeld herself. I don't recall if this was on tape or not but I believe it was recorded with witnesses present. I may be able to produce that conversation. I will check on it. My offer was never accepted. I am actually looking for the real answers.
7 a.) There will be a very interesting clip in LCFC from the MSM claiming that.
7b.) I don't believe he would have any sense after actually working with the US previously that a denial would prevent the consequences. The magnitude of the event in my opinion was recognizable to all of us from the beginning. He is not naive.
7 c.) The best documentary that tells the truth about why he escaped is the Dark Side. It was a pathetic struggle between Pentagon control of the situation versus Intelligence control. Inexcusable in such a drastic situation. pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
7 d.) My doubts about the video are purely subjective. I do not trust much of the 9/11 "truth" movement. They have betrayed themselves for many reasons and have spent a significant amount of energy portraying me as an agent for my honesty.
Not speculation - probabilty within my definition of it. I can't justify the math here just my belief.
Giuliani was having a business breakfast meeting in his room at the Great Eastern Hotel, close to Liverpool Street station when the bombs went off:
"I didn't hear the Liverpool Street bomb go off," he explains. "One of my security people came into the room and informed me that there had been an explosion. We went outside and they pointed in the direction of where they thought the incident had happened. There was no panic. I went back in to my breakfast. At that stage, the information coming in to us was very ambiguous." (quoted in the Evening Standard, 11 July 2005.)
The perfectly aligned drills and the presence of former Mayor Giuiliani (security guru now) a couple of blocks away exceeds my personal tolerance for coincidence. Coincidence stops somewhere is my personal belief. Have you seen the BBC interview with one of the managers of the drills? It is pretty eye opening.
globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/070705londonterrorexercise.wmv
Now I can link so it will take me some time to go back and answer the original 5 questions. Please be patient.
Russell