Morphology
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2006
- Messages
- 57
Hi!
Thanks for not banning at me. I poked a little fun at y’all the other day and I apologize.
I argued that only suckers fall for the “Al-Qaeda” myth. My opinion hasn't changed, but I’ll try not to put is so bluntly this time.
I didn’t point out that M. Atta’s best pal (a Caucasian German) just got released from prison by claiming – no doubt rightly – that he was CIA; nor that Atta appears to have been a smack courier in training and not a “jihadist”; nor that “Al-Qaeda”’s number two man, Ali Mohammed, got sprung from a Toronto prison cell by claiming he was CIA (he said to phone the CIA; they did; cops then released him); nor that Ali's superior officer stated that he "assumed [Ali] was CIA"; nor did I draw a parallel to a certain infamous incident, outlined at length in Joan Mellon’s book on the JFK assassination, where an imprisoned Oswald blithely told his jailers to phone the FBI. They did. He was released. Ruby, Banister, Shaw, yada yada yada.
No, I didn’t raise any of these peculiar under-the-radar anomalies. I did mention the dancing Israelis, who appeared on a television program in Israel and explained that they were there to “document the event.” [911] I didn’t mention the put-options, or Able Danger, or the Minetta testimony, or PNAC, or Oded Yinon’s strategy for Israel in the 1980’s. Did I mention Northwoods?
I merely drew attention to operation Gladio: a massive effort by Nato intelligence and the CIA to demonize the left throughout Western Europe by setting up terror cells then detonating upwards of 200 bombs. They blamed it on “socialists”. Worked like a charm J
Theoretically, events such as these should cause skepticism amongst skeptics; they (you) should openly ackowledge the disctinct possibility, based on empirical evidence alone, that the gubmint should be challenged on 911.
Yet the “skeptics” on this forum seem willing, nay, eager, eager as young pups at a mother's teet, to swallow whatever their overlords feeds them. Strange, to see the least.
Thoughts?
Thanks for not banning at me. I poked a little fun at y’all the other day and I apologize.
I argued that only suckers fall for the “Al-Qaeda” myth. My opinion hasn't changed, but I’ll try not to put is so bluntly this time.
I didn’t point out that M. Atta’s best pal (a Caucasian German) just got released from prison by claiming – no doubt rightly – that he was CIA; nor that Atta appears to have been a smack courier in training and not a “jihadist”; nor that “Al-Qaeda”’s number two man, Ali Mohammed, got sprung from a Toronto prison cell by claiming he was CIA (he said to phone the CIA; they did; cops then released him); nor that Ali's superior officer stated that he "assumed [Ali] was CIA"; nor did I draw a parallel to a certain infamous incident, outlined at length in Joan Mellon’s book on the JFK assassination, where an imprisoned Oswald blithely told his jailers to phone the FBI. They did. He was released. Ruby, Banister, Shaw, yada yada yada.
No, I didn’t raise any of these peculiar under-the-radar anomalies. I did mention the dancing Israelis, who appeared on a television program in Israel and explained that they were there to “document the event.” [911] I didn’t mention the put-options, or Able Danger, or the Minetta testimony, or PNAC, or Oded Yinon’s strategy for Israel in the 1980’s. Did I mention Northwoods?
I merely drew attention to operation Gladio: a massive effort by Nato intelligence and the CIA to demonize the left throughout Western Europe by setting up terror cells then detonating upwards of 200 bombs. They blamed it on “socialists”. Worked like a charm J
Theoretically, events such as these should cause skepticism amongst skeptics; they (you) should openly ackowledge the disctinct possibility, based on empirical evidence alone, that the gubmint should be challenged on 911.
Yet the “skeptics” on this forum seem willing, nay, eager, eager as young pups at a mother's teet, to swallow whatever their overlords feeds them. Strange, to see the least.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
