Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/? (616)
gardenhackle: Ambrose, let's try this. Instead of using a shotgun approach to arguing in favor of "conspiracy theories", in general, why don't you take this opportunity to argue your most compelling proof that the "official version" is a fabrication. What is your most solid, provable, fact-based proof of that? One single irrefutable position. Go ahead and lay it out for discussion and challenge. We can move onto additional "proofs" once you've established your primary and most compelling proof.
HOW DO YOU PROVE ANYTHING HOW DO YOU PROVE YOU WERE HERE PROVE IT.SHOW US PROVE IT
aspen12: HOW DO YOU PROVE ANYTHING HOW DO YOU PROVE YOU WERE HERE PROVE IT.SHOW US PROVE IT
All caps = "please ignore me". Your request is honored.
Albertaghost: Considering the amount of actvity going on during that particular day I feel pretty confident that it is about as neat as possible. Shoot, the unofficial theories can't even name who did it, how they did it without being noticed, or even a time line of who planted what and how it was done with what and how and why nobody has yet to come forward to confess they did it or, knew somebody who did. Considering the amount of activity that day and, all the bases that would have had to have been covered, not much in the way of finger pointing with names and deeds has come to light.
On what would your confidence be based? It's worth noting that it isn't shared by the 9/11 Commission's senior counsel or by some of the former 9/11 commissioners themselves.
Naming names doesn't qualify a theory as being either true or superior to theories which don't. Based on that logic, Zeus is responsible for lightning bolts is a superior claim to "I don't know what causes lightning bolts." A theory can be falsified without offering a positive alternative. All one has to do is demonstrate that one or more of its claims is false.
One solid proof to lay a foundation to the "inside job theory". Just one. Is there any solid, indisputable evidence that the "official version" is a fabrication? ONE solid point. That would give us something to work with. Something real.
Ambrose2007: All one has to do is demonstrate that one or more of its claims is false.
That would be a good start. If you can prove that one ore more of the "official version" claims is false AND aren't relying on one or more claims that can be demonstrated to be false, then you could really start making a case. Let's not dump out a great big box of parts and say that somewhere in there is proof. Plop one on the table ( just one ) and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it's solid.
gardenhackle: Logical fallacy "appeal to popularity" / "appeal to authority".
If you are going to argue the FBI's authority on this, then you have to argue THEIR position and not suppose one for them. Do you have some sort of official statement from the FBI denying Bin Ladin's culpability or are we to believe your guess about what they believe is a reasonable and credible argument?
You can't logically argue that someone's "failure" to research all the conspiracy theories to the extent you have is evidence that you are more well informed than they are about the FACTS. It only means that you are more well-informed about the variety and diversity of the "theories". The facts themselves are the basis for logical arguments.
Your position, in order to be a logical one, would have to be supportable by reason even if you were discussing or debating this with someone that was born yesterday and never heard even the first whisper of a conspiracy theory.
Arguing that because someone hasn't examined as many cow pastures as you have means they are incapable of recognizing a cow pile when they see one isn't logically supportable.
As long as you keep the discussion about FACTS, it's all good. As soon as you divert into logical fallacies like "appeal to authority", you begin shooting holes in your own arguments.
If you are going to argue the FBI's authority on this, then you have to argue THEIR position and not suppose one for them. Do you have some sort of official statement from the FBI denying Bin Ladin's culpability or are we to believe your guess about what they believe is a reasonable and credible argument?
You can't logically argue that someone's "failure" to research all the conspiracy theories to the extent you have is evidence that you are more well informed than they are about the FACTS. It only means that you are more well-informed about the variety and diversity of the "theories". The facts themselves are the basis for logical arguments.
Your position, in order to be a logical one, would have to be supportable by reason even if you were discussing or debating this with someone that was born yesterday and never heard even the first whisper of a conspiracy theory.
Arguing that because someone hasn't examined as many cow pastures as you have means they are incapable of recognizing a cow pile when they see one isn't logically supportable.
As long as you keep the discussion about FACTS, it's all good. As soon as you divert into logical fallacies like "appeal to authority", you begin shooting holes in your own arguments.
There are too many logical errors in your post for me to feel inclined to address them all, Garden. I feel as though I'd have to write a Logic 101 course for you, and I have neither the patience nor interest in doing that.
Instead, I'll simply reply to your first remark, and use it as an illustration of why it can indeed be important to actually know some critical details about something before making proclamations about it.
On June 5, 2006, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, responded to an inquiry about why bin Laden was not named as a suspect for 9/11:
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
So you see, knowing something about all or most of the cows in a pasture is sometimes necessary in order to comment intelligently on the herd. Perhaps it would now be a good idea to ask yourself: How many other facts am I unaware of that could alter my views on this subject?
gardenhackle: That would be a good start. If you can prove that one ore more of the "official version" claims is false AND aren't relying on one or more claims that can be demonstrated to be false, then you could really start making a case. Let's not dump out a great big box of parts and say that somewhere in there is proof. Plop one on the table ( just one ) and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it's solid.
I'm not aware of any formal proof that a particular official version claim is wrong. But bear in mind that vanishingly few claims can be formally proven. Quantum mechanics can't be formally proven, for example. However, current evidence would suggest that it's *highly probable.* That's where we are vis-a-vis 9/11: which interpretation of available evidence is most probable - that is, reasonable.
This isn't to say that many claims about 9/11 couldn't be formally proven. A major problem is that a single entity - the USG - has proprietary control of critical evidence that could either prove or disprove its case. For example, the 80+ surveillance tapes the FBI has of the area around the Pentagon that it refuses to make public. Those tapes could settle the question of what struck the Pentagon. The USG has position of 9/11 aircraft parts, which it also refuses to make available for public inspection. Releasing this evidence could end the debate. Ask yourself why that hasn't happened.
Also, you may ask yourself why the USG, which ought to have been concerned with safekeeping evidence, saw fit to ship the entire bin Laden family out of the country before any of its members could be questioned by the FBI, why it shipped steel from the WTC towers overseas within days of 9/11 (removing evidence from a crime scene), why the area in front of the Pentagon was carefully cleaned and resurfaced within days of the attack, and why it took over a year for the Bush Administration to even establish an investigative agency concerned with 9/11...among countless other similar questions. Are these the actions of an administration concerned with discovering and publicly revealing the truth?
If you're serious about learning enough about 9/11 to make a truly informed decision, then I would recommend David Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" and "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (critical of the official version), and Popular Mechanic's "Debunking 9/11 Myths." You could also visit the various pro and con websites. Evaluate and compare both sides, and decide which one offers the more solid case.
Great work and effort Ambrose. Good to see somebody have the time and energy to unpack this in a very logical manner and rip to sheds the naysayers. I agree with every angle you presented.
The funny thing about this, is that if Cheney came out and said 9-11 was part an inside job, many Americans wouldn't still believe it since it is just too much shock overload for them to handle. That is what you are up against. Any sound information pointing to the high probabilities that the official version is BS that you present, will never be considered or explored by the naysayers because they simply don't want to believe it, and will do everything in their power dismiss it with clever misdirections or just flat out ridicule and denial. The USG does not have a squeaky clean past, and they sure as hell are not prepared to do anything to make this world a better place since they would lose a lot of power, money, and control. Connecting the dots here with a vast and broad body of knowledge (official/alternate), would logically show that all this suspicion surrounding 9-11 is warranted.
The funny thing about this, is that if Cheney came out and said 9-11 was part an inside job, many Americans wouldn't still believe it since it is just too much shock overload for them to handle. That is what you are up against. Any sound information pointing to the high probabilities that the official version is BS that you present, will never be considered or explored by the naysayers because they simply don't want to believe it, and will do everything in their power dismiss it with clever misdirections or just flat out ridicule and denial. The USG does not have a squeaky clean past, and they sure as hell are not prepared to do anything to make this world a better place since they would lose a lot of power, money, and control. Connecting the dots here with a vast and broad body of knowledge (official/alternate), would logically show that all this suspicion surrounding 9-11 is warranted.
Ambrose2007: I'm not aware of any formal proof that a particular official version claim is wrong. But bear in mind that vanishingly few claims can be formally proven. Quantum mechanics can't be formally proven, for example. However, current evidence would suggest that it's *highly probable.* That's where we are vis-a-vis 9/11: which interpretation of available evidence is most probable - that is, reasonable.
This isn't to say that many claims about 9/11 couldn't be formally proven. A major problem is that a single entity - the USG - has proprietary control of critical evidence that could either prove or disprove its case. For example, the 80+ surveillance tapes the FBI has of the area around the Pentagon that it refuses to make public. Those tapes could settle the question of what struck the Pentagon. The USG has position of 9/11 aircraft parts, which it also refuses to make available for public inspection. Releasing this evidence could end the debate. Ask yourself why that hasn't happened.
Also, you may ask yourself why the USG, which ought to have been concerned with safekeeping evidence, saw fit to ship the entire bin Laden family out of the country before any of its members could be questioned by the FBI, why it shipped steel from the WTC towers overseas within days of 9/11 (removing evidence from a crime scene), why the area in front of the Pentagon was carefully cleaned and resurfaced within days of the attack, and why it took over a year for the Bush Administration to even establish an investigative agency concerned with 9/11...among countless other similar questions. Are these the actions of an administration concerned with discovering and publicly revealing the truth?
If you're serious about learning enough about 9/11 to make a truly informed decision, then I would recommend David Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" and "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (critical of the official version), and Popular Mechanic's "Debunking 9/11 Myths." You could also visit the various pro and con websites. Evaluate and compare both sides, and decide which one offers the more solid case.
This isn't to say that many claims about 9/11 couldn't be formally proven. A major problem is that a single entity - the USG - has proprietary control of critical evidence that could either prove or disprove its case. For example, the 80+ surveillance tapes the FBI has of the area around the Pentagon that it refuses to make public. Those tapes could settle the question of what struck the Pentagon. The USG has position of 9/11 aircraft parts, which it also refuses to make available for public inspection. Releasing this evidence could end the debate. Ask yourself why that hasn't happened.
Also, you may ask yourself why the USG, which ought to have been concerned with safekeeping evidence, saw fit to ship the entire bin Laden family out of the country before any of its members could be questioned by the FBI, why it shipped steel from the WTC towers overseas within days of 9/11 (removing evidence from a crime scene), why the area in front of the Pentagon was carefully cleaned and resurfaced within days of the attack, and why it took over a year for the Bush Administration to even establish an investigative agency concerned with 9/11...among countless other similar questions. Are these the actions of an administration concerned with discovering and publicly revealing the truth?
If you're serious about learning enough about 9/11 to make a truly informed decision, then I would recommend David Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" and "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (critical of the official version), and Popular Mechanic's "Debunking 9/11 Myths." You could also visit the various pro and con websites. Evaluate and compare both sides, and decide which one offers the more solid case.
ONE ARGUMENT. Something solid. I know you can do this. Just pick one thing and stick to it and let's lose the shotgun approach. You never get anywhere by flock shooting.
Ambrose2007: There are too many logical errors in your post for me to feel inclined to address them all, Garden. I feel as though I'd have to write a Logic 101 course for you, and I have neither the patience nor interest in doing that.
Instead, I'll simply reply to your first remark, and use it as an illustration of why it can indeed be important to actually know some critical details about something before making proclamations about it.
On June 5, 2006, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, responded to an inquiry about why bin Laden was not named as a suspect for 9/11:
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
So you see, knowing something about all or most of the cows in a pasture is sometimes necessary in order to comment intelligently on the herd. Perhaps it would now be a good idea to ask yourself: How many other facts am I unaware of that could alter my views on this subject?
Instead, I'll simply reply to your first remark, and use it as an illustration of why it can indeed be important to actually know some critical details about something before making proclamations about it.
On June 5, 2006, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, responded to an inquiry about why bin Laden was not named as a suspect for 9/11:
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
So you see, knowing something about all or most of the cows in a pasture is sometimes necessary in order to comment intelligently on the herd. Perhaps it would now be a good idea to ask yourself: How many other facts am I unaware of that could alter my views on this subject?
Ambrose2007: On June 5, 2006, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, responded to an inquiry about why bin Laden was not named as a suspect for 9/11:
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
OK, so that's your "ONE POINT"?! Your biggest and best shot? That the FBI states that they have no evidence of a direct connection between Bin Ladin and 9/11? I don't get it your point here. The "official version" that you're so hell bent on debunking does't claim Osama Bin Laden personally planned and organized 9/11, either. I have no idea why you think this is some sort of compelling evidence that what you call "the official version" is fabricated.
ONE POINT. Let's take it to some sort of logical conclusion, shall we. It's your chance to prove you've got something hard.
gardenhackle: OK, so that's your "ONE POINT"?! Your biggest and best shot? That the FBI states that they have no evidence of a direct connection between Bin Ladin and 9/11? I don't get it your point here. The "official version" that you're so hell bent on debunking does't claim Osama Bin Laden personally planned and organized 9/11, either. I have no idea why you think this is some sort of compelling evidence that what you call "the official version" is fabricated.
ONE POINT. Let's take it to some sort of logical conclusion, shall we. It's your chance to prove you've got something hard.
ONE POINT. Let's take it to some sort of logical conclusion, shall we. It's your chance to prove you've got something hard.
That's false. The official version does claim bin Laden and Al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11.
The FBI statement does in fact contradict the official theory.I'm scratching my head, Gard. Have you actually know anything of substance at all about this subject? Seriously. It's like arguing physics with someone who says, "One of Newton's three laws was not the law of equal and opposite reaction!" There's such a large gap of knowledge between you that all you can do is throw your hands in the air.
If you want to discuss this further with me, I'm going to require one of two things: 1) take some time and educate yourself about the subject; or 2) sit down calmly, stop proclaiming stuff that is false, open your ears, and be open to learning something new.
For the love of Zeus (or Dionysus,if you prefer), man, unlike most people here you've got the brains and intellectual discipline to do a helluva lot better this.
aspen12: WHAT PEOPLE BELEIVE
Yes.....
Ambrose2007: That's false. The official version does claim bin Laden and Al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11. The FBI statement does in fact contradict the official theory.
I'm scratching my head, Gard. Have you actually know anything of substance at all about this subject? Seriously. It's like arguing physics with someone who says, "One of Newton's three laws was not the law of equal and opposite reaction!" There's such a large gap of knowledge between you that all you can do is throw your hands in the air.
If you want to discuss this further with me, I'm going to require one of two things: 1) take some time and educate yourself about the subject; or 2) sit down calmly, stop proclaiming stuff that is false, open your ears, and be open to learning something new.
For the love of Zeus (or Dionysus,if you prefer), man, unlike most people here you've got the brains and intellectual discipline to do a helluva lot better this.
I'm scratching my head, Gard. Have you actually know anything of substance at all about this subject? Seriously. It's like arguing physics with someone who says, "One of Newton's three laws was not the law of equal and opposite reaction!" There's such a large gap of knowledge between you that all you can do is throw your hands in the air.
If you want to discuss this further with me, I'm going to require one of two things: 1) take some time and educate yourself about the subject; or 2) sit down calmly, stop proclaiming stuff that is false, open your ears, and be open to learning something new.
For the love of Zeus (or Dionysus,if you prefer), man, unlike most people here you've got the brains and intellectual discipline to do a helluva lot better this.
You are saying much, yet very little.
Ambrose2007: That's false. The official version does claim bin Laden and Al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11. The FBI statement does in fact contradict the official theory.
I'm scratching my head, Gard.Have Do you actually know anything of substance at all about this subject? Seriously. It's like arguing physics with someone who says, "One of Newton's three laws was is not the law of equal and opposite reaction!" There's such a large gap of knowledge between you that all you can do is throw your hands in the air.
If you want to discuss this further with me, I'm going to require one of two things: 1) take some time and educate yourself about the subject; or 2) sit down calmly, stop proclaiming stuff that is false, open your ears, and be open to learning something new.
For the love of Zeus (or Dionysus,if you prefer), man, unlike most people here you've got the brains and intellectual discipline to do a helluva lot better this.
I'm scratching my head, Gard.
If you want to discuss this further with me, I'm going to require one of two things: 1) take some time and educate yourself about the subject; or 2) sit down calmly, stop proclaiming stuff that is false, open your ears, and be open to learning something new.
For the love of Zeus (or Dionysus,if you prefer), man, unlike most people here you've got the brains and intellectual discipline to do a helluva lot better this.
gardenhackle: One solid proof to lay a foundation to the "inside job theory". Just one. Is there any solid, indisputable evidence that the "official version" is a fabrication? ONE solid point. That would give us something to work with. Something real.
Because I love to be fair I've tried (and gladly have failed) to find one such small shred of evidence......I'm open to FACTS - not BS theory. My volleyball teammates were always pissed b/c I'd call the ball IN when they(we) missed it....fair is fair...I don't wanna "win" if I cheated.....
StressFree: Great work and effort Ambrose. Good to see somebody have the time and energy to unpack this in a very logical manner and rip to sheds the naysayers. I agree with every angle you presented.
The funny thing about this, is that if Cheney came out and said 9-11 was part an inside job, many Americans wouldn't still believe it since it is just too much shock overload for them to handle. That is what you are up against. Any sound information pointing to the high probabilities that the official version is BS that you present, will never be considered or explored by the naysayers because they simply don't want to believe it, and will do everything in their power dismiss it with clever misdirections or just flat out ridicule and denial. The USG does not have a squeaky clean past, and they sure as hell are not prepared to do anything to make this world a better place since they would lose a lot of power, money, and control. Connecting the dots here with a vast and broad body of knowledge (official/alternate), would logically show that all this suspicion surrounding 9-11 is warranted.
The funny thing about this, is that if Cheney came out and said 9-11 was part an inside job, many Americans wouldn't still believe it since it is just too much shock overload for them to handle. That is what you are up against. Any sound information pointing to the high probabilities that the official version is BS that you present, will never be considered or explored by the naysayers because they simply don't want to believe it, and will do everything in their power dismiss it with clever misdirections or just flat out ridicule and denial. The USG does not have a squeaky clean past, and they sure as hell are not prepared to do anything to make this world a better place since they would lose a lot of power, money, and control. Connecting the dots here with a vast and broad body of knowledge (official/alternate), would logically show that all this suspicion surrounding 9-11 is warranted.
One of the primary objections to alternate 9/11 hypotheses, T, is the belief that it's impossible for an American president to utter the Big Lie, or for the government to act egregiously against American Citizens.
For those who believe this is true, the antidote is a brief study of history - particularly American history. Lyndon Johnson and The Gulf of Tonkin lie would serve as one example. Also, Bush lied through his teeth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier in US history, plutonium was tested on unknowing civilians. Syphilis was tested on unknowing Afro-American civilians. Operation Northwoods called for, among other things, the destruction of civilian aircraft, which would be blamed on Cuba. Operation Northwoods bears a *striking* resemblance to some 9/11 events - in particular, the hijacking of American commercial airliners.
The point is that it is hardly without precedent for the USG to lie in order to justify desired goals as well as to act against the interests of US citizens. And the above scarcely scratches the tip of iceberg, believe me.
Ambrose2007: One of the primary objections to alternate 9/11 hypotheses, T, is the belief that it's impossible for an American president to utter the Big Lie, or for the government to act egregiously against American Citizens.
For those who believe this is true, the antidote is a brief study of history - particularly American history. Lyndon Johnson and The Gulf of Tonkin lie would serve as one example. Also, Bush lied through his teeth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier in US history, plutonium was tested on unknowing civilians. Syphilis was tested on unknowing Afro-American civilians. Operation Northwoods called for, among other things, the destruction of civilian aircraft, which would be blamed on Cuba. Operation Northwoods bears a *striking* resemblance to some 9/11 events - in particular, the hijacking of American commercial airliners.
The point is that it is hardly without precedent for the USG to lie in order to justify desired goals as well as to act against the interests of US citizens. And the above scarcely scratches the tip of iceberg, believe me.
For those who believe this is true, the antidote is a brief study of history - particularly American history. Lyndon Johnson and The Gulf of Tonkin lie would serve as one example. Also, Bush lied through his teeth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier in US history, plutonium was tested on unknowing civilians. Syphilis was tested on unknowing Afro-American civilians. Operation Northwoods called for, among other things, the destruction of civilian aircraft, which would be blamed on Cuba. Operation Northwoods bears a *striking* resemblance to some 9/11 events - in particular, the hijacking of American commercial airliners.
The point is that it is hardly without precedent for the USG to lie in order to justify desired goals as well as to act against the interests of US citizens. And the above scarcely scratches the tip of iceberg, believe me.
Find us solid evidence to US government involvement in 911. Till then
it is moot here. If you got it, Ambrose go public with it and write book...make a million and do the TV circuit.
But just know that those 911 families, will be torn apart by your revelations. But that does not really matter.Because what you have is speculation from 911 truthers....that were formed after 911 among the Islamic world...to deflect the guilt.
But since you are so sure....
But also understand that those PHds that did the 911 investigations.....they are allot smarter than me. They will question your evidence, the methods it was collected, the way it was processed to the nth degree. Their professional reputations are on the line.
This will be a fight, that I will watch from the sidelines........
Indigo_Flow: Im willing to bet it was the Iraqi Information Minister...
Oh yeah! Who can forget about the infamous "Bagdad Bob", the Iraqi Information Minister giving a live interview and revealing how the Iraqi forces were winning the war and how it was valiantly defending the city limits of Bagdad, all the while when in the background you could an U.S. military tank brigrade entering the city without the least bit of any resistance from Iraqi forces. He's the same man that would often utter, Victory Sweet after every battle with the U.S. forces!!
giving the wrong information about how the Iraqi forces were defenwinning the War against interviews
aspen12: WHAT PEOPLE BELEIVE
To your question: Do you believe 911 was a inside?
Why don't you all ask Nancy Pelosi this question...with her whistle from her train-of-thought bareley audible, I am sure she'd be up to come on with some explaination that WE ALL can AGREE UPON...and finally solve this mystery for EVERYONE and put this PUPPY to SLEEP!
Ambrose2007: That's false. The official version does claim bin Laden and Al Qaeda are responsible for 9/11. The FBI statement does in fact contradict the official theory.
It is no secret whatsoever that Bin Laden was NOT directly involved, although Al Queda WAS directly involved. That's reality and if you somehow, despite all your "research" didn't know this, then that would explain the error of your thinking in all this.
You say "that's false" (when it's not) and then say something that IS false as your contradiction. If you can't do better than this, I've frittered away many precious minutes of my life that I'll never get back engaging in discussion with you as though you were a sensible, rational and honest person. I don't want to believe that's true, though. And I want to think you are honest, rational and sensible; albeit mistaken in this case. So I'll give you the opportunity to present your argument that Bin Laden was cited as the planner and coordinator of 9/11.
I'll check back in the morning to see if you found something of substance.
Ambrose2007: Also, Bush lied through his teeth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
If what YOU consider trusted sources lead you to believe information that isn't factually correct, are you lying through your teeth because you said something that wasn't true - even if you though it was. Is it that you are a lousy, spineless, abject liar (not accusing you of that, but just making a point) or are you simply stating something that turned out to be incorrect?
What say you? If anything you said turns out to be factually incorrect (FALSE), then were you lying through your teeth when you said it?
The law of non-contradiction will apply here. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Is it really good for the goose? That's the question. And what's your answer?
Yes It was an Insider Job . Binladen was inside a Mosque/Cave.
Ambrose2007:
For those who believe this is true, the antidote is a brief study of history - particularly American history. Lyndon Johnson and The Gulf of Tonkin lie would serve as one example.
For those who believe this is true, the antidote is a brief study of history - particularly American history. Lyndon Johnson and The Gulf of Tonkin lie would serve as one example.
Wow. How many thousand civilians died in that action?
Ambrose2007: Also, Bush lied through his teeth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Really? From what I understand the 2002 NIE said there were all sorts of hideous stuff in Iraq. Given that this is what Bush based his intelligence on I see no lie.
Ambrose2007: Earlier in US history, plutonium was tested on unknowing civilians. Syphilis was tested on unknowing Afro-American civilians.
Pretty secret stuff that I haighly doubt the government would get away with today.
Ambrose2007: Operation Northwoods called for, among other things, the destruction of civilian aircraft, which would be blamed on Cuba. Operation Northwoods bears a *striking* resemblance to some 9/11 events - in particular, the hijacking of American commercial airliners.
Op NW didn't call for any killing of civilians and, was shut down as soon as Kennedy was presented with it. IOWs, it was a plan only.
Ambrose2007: The point is that it is hardly without precedent for the USG to lie in order to justify desired goals as well as to act against the interests of US citizens. And the above scarcely scratches the tip of iceberg, believe me.
Well, you're right, it is hardly without precedent however, on the scale of 911, your examples are of koolaid stand proportions compared to IBM.
THERE IS NO WAY TO CONVINCE HIM THAT THIS WAS A INSIDE JOB HOWEVER OTHER PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY AND THEY CAN MAKE THERE OWN EDUCATED DECESION
Albertaghost: Wow. How many thousand civilians died in that action?
Really? From what I understand the 2002 NIE said there were all sorts of hideous stuff in Iraq. Given that this is what Bush based his intelligence on I see no lie.
Pretty secret stuff that I haighly doubt the government would get away with today.
Op NW didn't call for any killing of civilians and, was shut down as soon as Kennedy was presented with it. IOWs, it was a plan only.
Well, you're right, it is hardly without precedent however, on the scale of 911, your examples are of koolaid stand proportions compared to IBM.
Really? From what I understand the 2002 NIE said there were all sorts of hideous stuff in Iraq. Given that this is what Bush based his intelligence on I see no lie.
Pretty secret stuff that I haighly doubt the government would get away with today.
Op NW didn't call for any killing of civilians and, was shut down as soon as Kennedy was presented with it. IOWs, it was a plan only.
Well, you're right, it is hardly without precedent however, on the scale of 911, your examples are of koolaid stand proportions compared to IBM.
YOUR AT IT AGAIN UNCLE ALBERT HAVE YOU GOT NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN SAY PROVE IT.IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT SOMEONE SAYS YOU WOULD ARGUE WITH THAT PERSON.WHAT I WOULD SAY DONT ARGUE WITH UNCLE ALBERT DONT WASTE YOUR BREATH HE WILL JUST BLA BLA BLA YOU TO DEATH
aspen12: THERE IS NO WAY TO CONVINCE HIM THAT THIS WAS A INSIDE JOB HOWEVER OTHER PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY AND THEY CAN MAKE THERE OWN EDUCATED DECESION
Well that's it. Much rhetoric, no substance. Alberta is a lone voice in producing actual facts so far. Even the revered 'logician' has delivered little of value.
Why do you behave like a troll?
Blues63: Well that's it. Much rhetoric, no substance. Alberta is a lone voice in producing actual facts so far. Even the revered 'logician' has delivered little of value.
Why do you behave like a troll?
Why do you behave like a troll?
EXPLAIN WHAT A TROLL IS FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW
Conrad73: You just put it in a NUT-Shell,that even the NUTZ ought to understand!
Good to see you!
Hope you're safe and well!
Good to see you!
Hope you're safe and well!
Good to see you too Conrad. All's well in the sunny land.
Well, better run off and send out my next conspiracy story on 9/11. Take care and stay well
More Threads
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Reality Check
How far is too far?
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
Icebergs Still Around
everything is changing
Nature
1830's Music
Salami, Salami, Baloney
rarotonga
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Harry Belafonte - "Banana Boat Song (Day O)" - 1956