DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job
- Thread starter Regnad Kcin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- inside job
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
19 terrorists? Or 19 Mossad agents? Or 19 guys who thought they were serving Muslim interests when in fact they were serving U.S. interests?
There's a massive difference. Let me know when you get to the bottom of this.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
How about space aliens? Do you really have an "open mind"?
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
Gotta say, there is so much more. Some people cannot see the forest for the trees.
Some cannot read between the lines. Some cannot follow the money. Some people cannot concieve of the lies, deaths, and suffering of innocent people.
People in this country who have worked for and have ties to our government, lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, the Vietnam War cost the United States 58,000 lives and 350,000 casualties. It also resulted in between one and two million Vietnamese deaths.
Project Paperclip, bringing in Nazi war criminals to our country, who then started MKULTRA, who experimented on innocent unknowing, Americans including children.
Then we have the Plutonium Papers, exposing Americans to harmful radiation unknowingly.
When did we learn of these things? Long after the people responsible were around to be held accountable. Why should 9/11 be any different?
We went to Iraq based on LIES, look at all of our men and women and innocent Iraqi's who have died and suffered. America now condones TORTURE as a valid way to get information. If you witnessed your child being tortured, you would lie your ass off to make them stop, even if you didn't know anything!
We have lost our dignity, privacy, our rights. America has good people who want to help others, but they are not in power; and these lying mfer's, (want to know who they are?.....follow the money), have ruined this country are so obscenely wealthy and protected by the media and politicians they own, that they can and do get away with murder. They laugh at you, because they know that you will keep believing their bs, it doesn't even bother you, that the 9/11 Commission admits there are lies. Do you really believe that it was all just incompetence? The Commission had to find some way to explain the lies without the real criminals being accused.
Have a nice day.
TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.
The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.
The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.
NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.
The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.
This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).
Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.
If you have any questions about this story…you are a *******, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.
They have no response other than:
"But, but, but, the government says it's true and since I spent my life being indoctrinated in a government indoctrination camp, I don't have the thinking skills to question anything! So you're wrong! I just know it! Just because!!!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
We also notice you bring nothing to the table when we ask for proof.
You don't even have an argument except, "prove what I make-up is wrong".
Grow-up,
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Actually I stopped reading just after the 19 arabs strawman.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Reducing the causes of US intervention in the Vietnam war to the Gulf of Tonkin incident would be an insta-fail in pretty much every history course you could name.
Oh, and if you're looking for an argument by analogy, then that incident isn't a very good one, since there really was an exchange of fire between US and North Vietnamese naval forces on one occasion, and a number of classic fog-of-war, intelligence failures regarding the second which don't add up to a 'false flag' any way you try to slice it.
brazenlilraisin
...tart
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 660
You certainly make a compelling argument...against home schooling.
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
Straw man.
Nobody claimed the Gulf of Tonkin incident is what led to the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, but it certainly did lead to a major escalation of hostilities, now didn't it?
The first incident is a giant question mark. Nobody knows who started it. The North Vietnamese claimed we started it while we claimed they started it. The second incident isn't a question mark. We simply lied about it in the aftermath instead of admitting what really happened. Even Robert McNamara admits nothing happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Evidently your source criticism skills are sorely lacking since it's patently obvious that 'the government' doesn't tell people more than a tiny fraction of the things which contribute to making up their minds on a particular issue. The most critical video messages from Osama bin Laden admitting responsibility for 9/11, eg the October 2004 video, were broadcast by Al Jazeera, not by the Bush White House. That is evidence which is entirely independent of the US government or indeed anyone in the United States full stop.
Nor can Northwestern University be described as part of 'the government', since they're a private university. Zdenek Bazant, a political refugee from communist Czechoslovakia, was the author of one of the earliest analyses of the collapses of the Twin Towers, and a Northwestern professor. His accolades include five honorary doctorates from foreign universities and being one of the most cited authors in engineering, which is not something you can reduce to 'the government'.
It's really rather ironic to be lectured on thinking skills by someone who is dumb enough to believe that all information and all evidence about 9/11 comes from "the government".
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Google:
https://www.google.de/#hl=de&safe=o...or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=51777f4e239b1bcf
It is bad form, and possibly a breach of your membership agreement, to copy and paste long text without citing a source.
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
Is that even Osama bin Laden in that video? I mean the real Osama bin Laden? If it is, how can we be certain he's telling the truth? Could he have been a CIA/Mossad operative?
That's because you believe in a false paradigm where there's a separate private sector and a separate public sector, when the real truth is is our government is owned and controlled by private sector entities while masquerading around before the American people as a legitimate government.
Why not? Maybe he's a big fan of the U.S. government. Maybe he's a statist. Maybe he's angling for a U.S. government job in the future. You don't know his real agenda.
How ironic. Logical fallacy, straw man. I never made this argument.
arielflight
New Blood
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 21
right above you, no pun intended.
...it...Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I see somebody who registered 2 years ago and couldn't be bothered to post till now. Damn lazy!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Nick Terry
Illuminator
On the contrary, I quoted arielflight saying:
Since arielflight mentioned no other explanation for US intervention in Vietnam then there was no strawman involved on my side.
It would not be true to say that the Gulf of Tonkin incident led to an immediate escalation, since the US was already involved pretty deeply with advisors and military aid to South Vietnam. 400 American servicemen lost their lives up to 1964, and Johnson's administration had just increased the number of advisors by 5,000 almost immediately before the incident. Yet despite the congressional resolution, neither the commitment of ground troops nor the start of Rolling Thunder followed immediately from the incident or from the resolution. There was, after all, an election on. Nor when ground troops were committed was there a clear strategy to use American forces offensively. That evolved later, and with that later change of strategy, the prime cause of the higher total of American casualties (as well as Vietnamese casualties, due to the lavish use of firepower and airpower in support of American infantry).
It is also somewhat suspect to imply that had Congress or Johnson himself been in full possession of the facts that there wouldn't have been a resolution; this was the era of the Cold War, not long after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and containment was still the basic American strategy in the Cold War. The country had gone to war in Korea not long before and suffered almost as many casualties as later occurred in Vietnam. There was strong bipartisan support among politicians for the intervention and also strong support from public opinion in the early years of the ground war. The consensus in American society in support of containment and 'stopping communism' was very strong - until the strategy of containment visibly failed in Vietnam.
Johnson is often portrayed as a warmonger, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate he wasn't nearly as keen as people have sometimes said he was to escalate the conflict. Not only did he say he wasn't keen, but the halting escalation in 1964-5 indicates this
Oh, by the way, Johnson's opponent in the 1964 campaign, Barry Goldwater, rather famously suggested using nuclear weapons to defoliate the Vietnamese jungle in May 1964.
arielflight
New Blood
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 21
Coming off like a raving lunatic does not advance your cause.
You could try to connect the dots. (From Wikipedia)
In adult discourse the phrase "connect the dots" can be used as a metaphor to illustrate an ability (or inability) to associate one idea with another, to find the "big picture", or salient feature, in a mass of data.[2]
Reuven Feuerstein features the connection of dots as the first tool in his cognitive
development program.
Or... from Wiktionary
see the forest for the trees
(idiomatic) To discern an overall pattern from a mass of detail; to see the big picture, or the broader, more general situation.
Smith is good at detail, but can't see the forest for the trees.
to discern overall pattern from details
Or you could, see the big picture. Definition of BIG PICTURE
: the entire perspective on a situation or issue —
Or insult me instead. I understand if you are unable to do anything else.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Researchers "connect the dots"
Conspiracy theorist ask you to do it yourself.
So, How do these "dots connect"? In your words (please).
Last edited:
And some haven't even read what they criticize and instead rely on third parties' "truth".
Yes, you have proved you haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report, and that you've believed every rumor and hearsay about the case as if it were the truth.
Well done.
ETA: Oh, wait, it wasn't even original. The author of that text didn't. You just plagiarized it. Snort. Thanks, Oystein.
Last edited: