| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alek
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 29
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
I watched the whole movie. For a documentary that criticizes the government for leaving so many questions unanswered, it presents many questions itself that it fails to answer.
Although the widows frequently said, "Our questions weren't answered," it was unclear what their questions were, other than some that bordered on rhetorical, such as, "How could a skyscraper just collapse in ten seconds?"
Was she promoting the controlled demolition theory, or was she bitter about construction practices that failed to provide her husband a safe place to work? It doesn't say.
|
If you actually pay attention to the video the questions are clear and numerous. For instance, why was there no military response? How did the buildings collapse at a near free-fall rate of speed? What happend to WTC7? Why did the white house phone Willie Brown, the San Francisco mayor, warning him not to travel on 9/11? Why did the Bush administration not share the contents of the PDB warning of impending terrorist attacks with the general public? How could Bin Ladin have escaped past the US juggernaut in Tora Bora, in a one-thousand vehicle convoy? Why did ISI chief Mahmood Ahmed wire $100,000 to alleged hijacker Mohammed Atta? What is the relationship between the CIA and the Pakistani ISI? These are but a few examples of important yet unanswered questions raised by the 9/11 families including the Jersey Girls, and others.
Many at JREF, possibly including you, have accused the 9/11 truth movement of disrespecting the fallen on 9/11, and their families. Does this irrational and hyperbolic accusation go for the families themselves too?
| Quote: |
If taken at face value, I would say that the documentary makes a strong case that the Bush administration stonewalled on several issues in order to save face on its response to the attacks. This includes the suppression of the August memo that contradicts the President's claim that no one had foreseen airplanes used as missiles. I think in this and in other areas, the administration could have handled it better, no question. However, there's a big difference between putting a positive spin on getting caught off-guard and perpetrating mass murder.
|
I think this statement illustrates the absolute credulity that you and others seem to share. The Bush administration stonewalled an investigation into the deaths of 2972 people on 9/11, an event which has propelled the US into preemptive foreign war on the basis of fighting "terror", and has served as the pretext for police state legislation like the Patriot Act to be passed. Over three-thousand US service men and women have been killed, along with tens of thousands of civilians on the basis of these lies. Your cavalier attitude towards the cover-up is astonishing. The administration is innocent-until-proven guilty, but we won't know without a real investigation that isn't carried out by the alleged perpetrators themselves! Criminals often hide under the guise of incompetence. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The stakes are just too high here to not to overturn every single rock and expose everyone involved in 9/11 to the light of justice.
You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You only have to be in charge of the investigation that follows.
| Quote: |
The documentary describes time and time again how the widows successfully pressured the administration into acting and/or releasing information about the attacks. It's too bad that they had to be pressured into doing this, but as far as I can tell the administration has cooperated, albeit reluctantly and belatedly.
|
The question is, why? What could they possibly have to hide? If they were incompetent as opposed to complicit, which I find unlikely given the evidence, then we aren't safe. If they are complicit, then obviously we aren't safe, and things are much worse than you think. Either way, there needs to be a new investigation which is completely free of any conflict of interest, unlike the 9/11 commission. This is something that you and your like at JREF have been adamantly opposed to. You've called us kooks, morons, and liars for demanding it. Why? What is your rationalization for letting either incompetence or malfeasance go uninvestigated?
| Quote: |
I sympathize with the widows, and I believe they were treated poorly by the government. However, if you are interested in getting at the truth, you are unlikely to get an unbiased analysis from someone who has such a powerful personal stake in the matter.
|
This is another example of your irrationality. On the one hand, you proclaim the Jersey Girls to be biased with respect to their interest in the truth of 9/11, and on the other, you apologize for the administration and the obvious 9/11 commission conflicts of interest with Kean, Zelikow, and their original choice Kissenger! Sure, all of these parties are biased. But more importantly, what do these people have to gain or lose, respectively, from a real investigation? It seems to me the 9/11 families including the Jersey Girls only have the truth to gain. It seems to me the establishment has billions of dollars based on fear and lies to lose.
| Quote: |
The single most important complaint, as far as I could tell, was that the government knew something about the danger of terrorist attacks by air but failed to stop it. The narrator was misleading here; at one point he said (paraphrasing) "...the administration claims it didn't know where and when the attacks would occur, but it has been shown that they had detailed information available to them." What he left out was that the details did NOT include where and when.
|
Condoleezza Rice allegedly phoned San Francisco mayor Willie Brown just before 9/11 warning him not to fly. While this isn't proof of specific knowledge, it is an interesting circumstance.
We need a real investigation to find out exactly what they knew, and when they knew it. Why are you against us?
| Quote: |
It's also important to look at this in its historical context. There have been times in the past when the government has had much better intelligence than this, a much clearer picture of who the enemy was and why they wanted to attack, and the readiness to respond...and yet were STILL caught off guard. It happened twice in 1941, at Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines. These were MILITARY targets, the kinds of targets that are designed to fight back.
|
Funny you mention that. There are questions about who knew what and when about Pearl Harbor, too. Read Day of Deceit, by Robert Stinnett.
| Quote: |
The fact is, sometimes you can do all the right things and still not get a favorable result, and people rarely do all the right things. That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy at work. |
The fact is, there has been a cover-up. We don't know exactly what they're covering up, whether it is incompetence or malfeasance, until it is uncovered. The fact that you and yours at JREF are opposed to us means that you are a partner to the administrations incompetence, or worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Here your having fun surely? although I do believe David Irving argued against the reichstag fire as falseflag, so if you wish to side yourself with him, your welcome obviously. The facts are it is taught as a False Flag op in sylabuses across the planet. Arguing that governments have not decieved their own people throughout history is a highway to nothing, and I trust you find it wise to agree |
It could be taught in every classroom in the world, and that in itself would not make it true. The fact is, there is no direct evidence that the Reichstag fire was "falseflag", and there probably never will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alek wrote: |
If you actually pay attention to the video the questions are clear and numerous. For instance, why was there no military response? How did the buildings collapse at a near free-fall rate of speed? What happend to WTC7? Why did the white house phone Willie Brown, the San Francisco mayor, warning him not to travel on 9/11? Why did the Bush administration not share the contents of the PDB warning of impending terrorist attacks with the general public? How could Bin Ladin have escaped past the US juggernaut in Tora Bora, in a one-thousand vehicle convoy? Why did ISI chief Mahmood Ahmed wire $100,000 to alleged hijacker Mohammed Atta? What is the relationship between the CIA and the Pakistani ISI? These are but a few examples of important yet unanswered questions raised by the 9/11 families including the Jersey Girls, and others.
|
I heard the narrator raise some of these questions, but I was specifically listening for the widows to ask one of the standard CT questions, and I didn't hear any. The closest, as I said before, was the question, "How could the tower just collapse in ten seconds?" Whether this was a comment about building safety or an insinuation that explosives were somehow used is not clear.
| Quote: |
I think this statement illustrates the absolute credulity that you and others seem to share. The Bush administration stonewalled an investigation into the deaths of 2972 people on 9/11, an event which has propelled the US into preemptive foreign war on the basis of fighting "terror", and has served as the pretext for police state legislation like the Patriot Act to be passed. Over three-thousand US service men and women have been killed, along with tens of thousands of civilians on the basis of these lies. Your cavalier attitude towards the cover-up is astonishing.
|
If the administration had been straightforward in admitting its mistakes on 9/11, and had immediately set up a 9/11 commission to investigate the attacks, would it have prevented the Patriot Act, the war on terror, etc.? I don't think so. These were responses to the terrorist attacks, not Bush's disingenuousness.
| Quote: | | The administration is innocent-until-proven guilty, but we won't know without a real investigation that isn't carried out by the alleged perpetrators themselves! |
By all means, start your investigation. After all, you are the only one you know for sure was not involved in the attacks. Aren't you...?
| Quote: | | Criminals often hide under the guise of incompetence. |
Interesting. Can you give me some examples?
| Quote: |
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The stakes are just too high here to not to overturn every single rock and expose everyone involved in 9/11 to the light of justice.
You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You only have to be in charge of the investigation that follows.
|
Again, using your standards of evidence, how would you know who WASN'T involved when you assemble your unbiased commission?
| Quote: |
The question is, why? What could they possibly have to hide? If they were incompetent as opposed to complicit, which I find unlikely given the evidence, then we aren't safe.
|
Argument from negative consequences. Not liking the implications of something does not make it true or false.
| Quote: | If they are complicit, then obviously we aren't safe, and things are much worse than you think. Either way, there needs to be a new investigation which is completely free of any conflict of interest, unlike the 9/11 commission. This is something that you and your like at JREF have been adamantly opposed to. You've called us kooks, morons, and liars for demanding it. Why? What is your rationalization for letting either incompetence or malfeasance go uninvestigated?
|
How's this for starters: When would it end? No matter what the results of in investigation, there's going to be people who aren't happy. Do we keep investigating again and again until everyone is satisfied? Or do we just do it until YOU are satisfied?
| Quote: |
This is another example of your irrationality. On the one hand, you proclaim the Jersey Girls to be biased with respect to their interest in the truth of 9/11, and on the other, you apologize for the administration and the obvious 9/11 commission conflicts of interest with Kean, Zelikow, and their original choice Kissenger!
|
When did I do that?
| Quote: |
Condoleezza Rice allegedly phoned San Francisco mayor Willie Brown just before 9/11 warning him not to fly. While this isn't proof of specific knowledge, it is an interesting circumstance.
|
Yes, unsubstantiated rumors are often interesting, that's why they become rumors.
| Quote: |
We need a real investigation to find out exactly what they knew, and when they knew it. Why are you against us?
|
I'm against anyone who wastes time chasing fantasies when there's real work to do.
| Quote: |
Funny you mention that. There are questions about who knew what and when about Pearl Harbor, too. Read Day of Deceit, by Robert Stinnett.
|
No.
| Quote: |
The fact is, there has been a cover-up. We don't know exactly what they're covering up, whether it is incompetence or malfeasance, until it is uncovered. The fact that you and yours at JREF are opposed to us means that you are a partner to the administrations incompetence, or worse. |
Really? That's the ONLY possible explanation for opposition to your world-view?
Why isn't it possible that we're just annoyed by what we see as wildly irrational claims? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alek
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
I heard the narrator raise some of these questions, but I was specifically listening for the widows to ask one of the standard CT questions, and I didn't hear any. The closest, as I said before, was the question, "How could the tower just collapse in ten seconds?" Whether this was a comment about building safety or an insinuation that explosives were somehow used is not clear.
|
Conspiracy theories are going to arise whenever there is evidence of a coverup. But forget about the conspiracy theories for the moment, this is about the coverup, and the whitewash investigation that followed. I think it's clear that the Jersey Girls in particular don't endorse any specific theories. The closest they came in that video was when Lorie Van Auken said at 10:47 "We felt that the country was at risk from terrorists and from incompetence, and maybe worse." I think their frustration lies in the fact that we don't know what happend. We only hear the government and media line repeated ad nauseum.
| Quote: |
If the administration had been straightforward in admitting its mistakes on 9/11, and had immediately set up a 9/11 commission to investigate the attacks, would it have prevented the Patriot Act, the war on terror, etc.? I don't think so. These were responses to the terrorist attacks, not Bush's disingenuousness.
|
No, I don't think you understand. What's at stake here is the very notion that America was attacked on 9/11 by "islamic terrorists". It is this pretext that has resulted in the "War on Terror", and the "Patriot" Act, among other reprehensible things. As I pointed out earlier, you're more credulous than I. The Bush administration lied, and covered up 9/11. Once someone lies to me, they lose credibility, and I find it difficult to believe anything they say subsequently. Apparently you're willing to believe people that repeatedly lie to you. In any event, given their lies and deceit, we have no way of knowing whether they are covering up their incompetence, or maybe worse. Isn't it important to you that we find out? There seems to be a lot at stake here. I find your response and the response of those at JREF to be absurd, which is essentially that "they're probably just incompetent, everyone knows the government is incompetent." If this is the case, then aren't we all in immediate danger from more terrorism? Of course, I think we are. But we're in danger of another false flag operation which will make everyone forget about 9/11 and the 9/11 truth movement.
| Quote: |
By all means, start your investigation. After all, you are the only one you know for sure was not involved in the attacks. Aren't you...?
|
Why does it have to be "my" investigation? A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll concluded that one-third of Americans believe there is a 9/11 government conspiracy. That amounts to nearly one-hundred million people. Is this not justification for an open, impartial investigation? Certainly any reasonable person could see there is a lot at stake here? What kind of an inane comment is "I am the only one I know for sure was not involved in the attacks, aren't I?" Is that supposed to be insulting? Apparently either one has to support the lies of the Bush administration and the Kean Commission unquestioningly, or they are implicitly accusing everyone of being complicit in 9/11. What? Is this the sort of logic that passes for being a "skeptic"?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Criminals often hide under the guise of incompetence. |
Interesting. Can you give me some examples?
|
Sure. Lets start with the alleged 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon that was reported shortly before 9/11, but about which we've heard little since. Ooops! We misplaced it, so sorry. Is it beyond the realm of reason to suggest that someone, somewhere, hasn't benefitted immensely from that missing money? What about the $600 toilet seats and hammers billed to the government in the eighties? Is that incompetence too? Oddly enough, there are one or more beneficiaries to every economic transaction. One persons "incompetence" usually turns out to be someone elses gain. Or, looked at from another perspective, the malfeasance of one can turn into the criminal gain of another.
Hanlon's razor is relevant here. It states "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's razor, in my opinion, is complete bunk. It seems to me that Hanlon (or Heinlein, whoever you prefer) is completely void of any insight into human nature. Hanlon's razor is in desperate need of a condition: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, unless there is something to be gained."
| Quote: |
Again, using your standards of evidence, how would you know who WASN'T involved when you assemble your unbiased commission?
|
How would you know what my standards of evidence are? You don't know me. Your implication that my standard of evidence is low is about as valid as my impression that you're a credulous apologist for the establishment - a dupe - in other words. They're just opinions, and I'm sure you know the expression regarding what opinions are like. I presume any fair investigation would start with the facts and use them to answer the previously unanswered questions. How could I expect anything more?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | The question is, why? What could they possibly have to hide? If they were incompetent as opposed to complicit, which I find unlikely given the evidence, then we aren't safe.
|
Argument from negative consequences. Not liking the implications of something does not make it true or false.
|
This pedantic "logic" doesn't follow. The Bush administration and NORAD's coverup of the events of 9/11, and the stonewalling of an investigation were obviously done for a reason, right? Or are you suggesting that they risked a coverup for nothing? The two possibilities I find most likely are because they were either incompetent, as you suggest, or that they were complicit. If you can think of any other possibilities, then feel free to enumerate them here.
You're damn right I don't like the implications of the coverup. Do you like government coverups? Should I? I didn't suggest it made anything true or false, what it suggests is that further investigation is required. Governments should be transparent, not opaque. The opacity of the Bush administration in this context can only be viewed as suspicious by any reasonable person.
| Quote: |
How's this for starters: When would it end? No matter what the results of in investigation, there's going to be people who aren't happy. Do we keep investigating again and again until everyone is satisfied? Or do we just do it until YOU are satisfied?
|
The investigation would end when all facts have been uncovered, all leads have been investigated, and justice has been brought to the perpetrators of 9/11. This idea that since the 9/11 Commission whitewash didn't satisfy one-hundred million people and more means that no investigation would satisfy them is a false dilemma.
The question is, why are you so satisfied with the non-investigation, in light of all of the contradictory evidence? Could it be your fear of having to face some very disturbing truths, or could it be your irrational desire to indict a billion muslims for crimes they aren't responsible for, in your anti-religious zealotry?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Condoleezza Rice allegedly phoned San Francisco mayor Willie Brown just before 9/11 warning him not to fly. While this isn't proof of specific knowledge, it is an interesting circumstance.
|
Yes, unsubstantiated rumors are often interesting, that's why they become rumors.
|
Is the San Francisco Chronicle in the business of reporting rumors? They're the ones who reported the warning Brown received from his "airport security". According to Pacifica Radio it was Condoleezza Rice who gave him the warning. Are facts only facts when they support your position, and rumors otherwise? Is evidence of a high standard only when it supports your conclusions, and low otherwise? You have to be honest with yourself if you expect to know the truth. Quite frankly, few of you at JREF that I have encountered have expressed this basic honesty.
| Quote: |
I'm against anyone who wastes time chasing fantasies when there's real work to do.
|
The government spent one-hundred million dollars on the Clinton investigation, and spent a paltry fifteen million to investigate 9/11, the crime of the century involving the deaths of 2972 people (and counting). Why won't you side with the families and us in pushing for a real investigation? What do you have to lose, as opposed to gaining the truth?
The only people living in the fantasy world are narrow-minded people like you. It will be reality which will dictate the future, not fantasy. The reality is that there is something very wrong with our government.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
The fact is, there has been a cover-up. We don't know exactly what they're covering up, whether it is incompetence or malfeasance, until it is uncovered. The fact that you and yours at JREF are opposed to us means that you are a partner to the administrations incompetence, or worse. |
Really? That's the ONLY possible explanation for opposition to your world-view?
Why isn't it possible that we're just annoyed by what we see as wildly irrational claims? |
You don't know me, or my world-view, but yet you know you're opposed to it. It's entirely possible that you're just annoyed, but I've demonstrated that the only one here making irrational claims is you.
I think it's more likely that you're emotionally incapable of accepting what would amount to be very disturbing truths. It's more likely you want to accept the infantile paradigm that we are to believe 9/11 occured in the context of. The paradigm which asserts that religious fanatics plot and scheme to kill themselves and us because they "hate our freedom". This is naturally inspired by your loathing of everything religious. That is a common thread I've gleaned from the JREF forums.
Well, the rest of the world is waking up to this false paradigm, and we're busy exposing it. When will you wake up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alek wrote: |
Conspiracy theories are going to arise whenever there is evidence of a coverup. But forget about the conspiracy theories for the moment, this is about the coverup, and the whitewash investigation that followed. I think it's clear that the Jersey Girls in particular don't endorse any specific theories. The closest they came in that video was when Lorie Van Auken said at 10:47 "We felt that the country was at risk from terrorists and from incompetence, and maybe worse." I think their frustration lies in the fact that we don't know what happend. We only hear the government and media line repeated ad nauseum.
|
We DO know what happened. Hijacked planes flew into buildings. They caught fire. They fell down. The planes were later found to have been hijacked by Muslim terrorists who had been funded by al Qaeda.
The video clearly WANTS us to believe that the Jersey Girls support some cool "the gumbint didit" hypothesis. Their words were carefully edited to suggest that they believed something sinister was going on in the background. Why else would we hear numerous sound bites of "they won't answer our questions" but almost none of the questions themselves, except a few that vaguely seem to support the tinfoil hat theories?
| Quote: |
No, I don't think you understand. What's at stake here is the very notion that America was attacked on 9/11 by "islamic terrorists". It is this pretext that has resulted in the "War on Terror", and the "Patriot" Act, among other reprehensible things. As I pointed out earlier, you're more credulous than I. The Bush administration lied, and covered up 9/11.
|
What the Bush administration did was try to clumsily cover its collective ass. Years ago, I was an assistant manager at a restaurant. One night my boss called me and asked me to meet him there because the alarm had gone off, and I was the last person on duty. We arrived to found that burglers had broken in through the vent fans on the roof and had ransacked the place looking for money.
Immediately I had a guilty conscience. I worried about what I might have done wrong the night before. Had I forgotten to lock the doors? Had I left some money out? Had I forgotten to lock the safe?
This doesn't mean that I actually robbed the place myself. It simply means that I was afraid the robbery may have exposed some incompetence on my part, and since the robbers themselves weren't available, I would take the brunt of the blame.
The point of all this is to show that there is more than one explanation for wanting to sugarcoat the truth, or hide the truth, or just simply lie outright. It doesn't necessarilly mean that the deceiver committed mass murder.
| Quote: | | Once someone lies to me, they lose credibility, and I find it difficult to believe anything they say subsequently. Apparently you're willing to believe people that repeatedly lie to you. |
No, I simply take what they say with a grain of salt. The Bush administration stonewalled some of the information that it had in its control. Not only do I not condone this sort of behavior, I think it was a stupid move on Bush's part in any event. Nevertheless, it could not control what people saw on television, what disaster workers witnessed, what the media reported, and what various experts concluded after careful analysis. Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that Bush has an iron grip on all these people, but I find that implausible.
| Quote: |
In any event, given their lies and deceit, we have no way of knowing whether they are covering up their incompetence, or maybe worse. Isn't it important to you that we find out? There seems to be a lot at stake here. I find your response and the response of those at JREF to be absurd, which is essentially that "they're probably just incompetent, everyone knows the government is incompetent." If this is the case, then aren't we all in immediate danger from more terrorism? Of course, I think we are. But we're in danger of another false flag operation which will make everyone forget about 9/11 and the 9/11 truth movement.
|
Here you're ASSUMING there ever was a false-flag operation.
| Quote: |
Why does it have to be "my" investigation? A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll concluded that one-third of Americans believe there is a 9/11 government conspiracy. That amounts to nearly one-hundred million people. Is this not justification for an open, impartial investigation?
|
Fine, then stop bitching and ORGANIZE one. Who do you expect to do it? The government?
| Quote: |
Sure. Lets start with the alleged 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon that was reported shortly before 9/11, but about which we've heard little since. Ooops! We misplaced it, so sorry. Is it beyond the realm of reason to suggest that someone, somewhere, hasn't benefitted immensely from that missing money? |
OK, there's evidence of incompetence. Do you have evidence of a crime?
| Quote: | What about the $600 toilet seats and hammers billed to the government in the eighties? Is that incompetence too?
|
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Remember, you can't make vague accusations against SOMEONE in the government. Who did what, and when, and where? Where is your evidence that they did it?
| Quote: | Oddly enough, there are one or more beneficiaries to every economic transaction. One persons "incompetence" usually turns out to be someone elses gain. Or, looked at from another perspective, the malfeasance of one can turn into the criminal gain of another.
|
Only from a paranoid perspective. Just because one person loses and one person gains in a financial transaction doesn't mean a crime has been committed.
| Quote: |
Hanlon's razor is relevant here. It states "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's razor, in my opinion, is complete bunk. It seems to me that Hanlon (or Heinlein, whoever you prefer) is completely void of any insight into human nature. Hanlon's razor is in desperate need of a condition: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, unless there is something to be gained."
|
No one believes that such logical tools are infallible. But to believe the opposite, that whenever someone benefits from another's misfortune, a crime has been committed, is paranoia. We need EVIDENCE before we can accuse someone of a crime.
| Quote: |
How would you know what my standards of evidence are? You don't know me.
|
I know that you believe that all of the Jersey Girls' questions were spelled out plainly in the video, when they clearly weren't. I know that you assumed a crime was committed when billions of dollars went missing from the military budget. And, most importantly, you seem to believe that questions are evidence.
| Quote: |
You're damn right I don't like the implications of the coverup. Do you like government coverups? Should I? I didn't suggest it made anything true or false, what it suggests is that further investigation is required. Governments should be transparent, not opaque. The opacity of the Bush administration in this context can only be viewed as suspicious by any reasonable person.
|
The government IS transparent. No matter who the president is, there are numerous people in the government who would like to see him go down. For this reason, it is almost impossible for the president to successfully maintain a coverup. Remember Monica Lewinsky? A private matter between two consenting adults, and yet the whole world found out about it.
| Quote: |
The question is, why are you so satisfied with the non-investigation, in light of all of the contradictory evidence?
|
Because the "evidence" of which you speak is crappy.
| Quote: | Could it be your fear of having to face some very disturbing truths, or could it be your irrational desire to indict a billion muslims for crimes they aren't responsible for, in your anti-religious zealotry?
|
Where is your evidence that I have an irrational desire to indict a billion muslims, or that I am an anti-religious zealot? Do you see why I question your standards of evidence?
| Quote: |
Is the San Francisco Chronicle in the business of reporting rumors? They're the ones who reported the warning Brown received from his "airport security". According to Pacifica Radio it was Condoleezza Rice who gave him the warning. Are facts only facts when they support your position, and rumors otherwise? Is evidence of a high standard only when it supports your conclusions, and low otherwise?
|
No, there are many factors to take into consideration when evaluating evidence. For instance, the warning was attributed to Condoleeza Rice by Pacifica Radio, which had no known source for this information and which could not be corroborated. Since Pacifica Radio promotes conspiracy theories, I would definitely need some corroboration before I would accept what they reported.
| Quote: |
The only people living in the fantasy world are narrow-minded people like you. It will be reality which will dictate the future, not fantasy. The reality is that there is something very wrong with our government.
|
Agreed! Do you have a viable solution?
| Quote: |
The fact is, there has been a cover-up. We don't know exactly what they're covering up, whether it is incompetence or malfeasance, until it is uncovered. The fact that you and yours at JREF are opposed to us means that you are a partner to the administrations incompetence, or worse. |
I'm not opposed to it. Go ahead with your investigation. (Surely you don't expect the government to fund it, since you believe they are complicit?)
| Quote: |
I think it's more likely that you're emotionally incapable of accepting what would amount to be very disturbing truths. It's more likely you want to accept the infantile paradigm that we are to believe 9/11 occured in the context of. The paradigm which asserts that religious fanatics plot and scheme to kill themselves and us because they "hate our freedom". This is naturally inspired by your loathing of everything religious. That is a common thread I've gleaned from the JREF forums.
Well, the rest of the world is waking up to this false paradigm, and we're busy exposing it. When will you wake up? |
I don't believe they attack because they "hate our freedom", that is a gross over-simplification. I don't loathe everything religious. And I am emotionally capable of accepting disturbing truths. One of the most disturbing truths I've had to accept in my life is that the world is not quite as exciting as it is portrayed on movies and TV. Most of the time, events have a pretty pedestrian explanation; things just aren't as "cool" as we'd like them to be. There's no magical bending of spoons, no lost city of Atlantis, no alien abductions. Worst of all, devastating, earth-shattering events occur that seem to have no purpose or meaning -- for instance, a small group of people can wreak unspeakable chaos on the rest of the world, if they set their minds to it. It's not pretty, but it's life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
More grist for the mill:
| Quote: | http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rory_oconnor/2006/09/the_path_from _911.html
We can never move beyond 9/11 until we have a complete, thorough and non-partisan investigation of the events of the day and what underlies them.
Rory O'Connor
Now that all the books have been published and promoted; the Hollywood films have all opened (and closed); all the radio and television commentaries and commemorative specials have been broadcast; all the dramas (and the so-called "docudramas") and even a handful of reality-based, actual "documentaries" have aired and been argued over, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, on the web and in the blogosphere...at long last, and after all has been said (but so little really has been done) where do we find ourselves? And where do we go from here, on the long, confusing, circuitous and still ever-painful path from 9/11?
To answer that question, we first must come to understand truly what happened in and to America five years ago, how it happened, and - most important - why. Yet the plethora of attack-related media that has exploded onto our public consciousness in the run-up to the fifth "anniversary" of the terror attacks has done nothing to help us understand any of it. Yes, books have been sold, theatres filled, ratings raised, circulations increased, reputations enhanced - but I repeat: nothing has been done to help us understand.
This, despite the obvious talents of directors like Paul Greengrass of United 93 and Oliver Stone of World Trade Center; despite the literary investigations of reporters like Peter (Triple Cross) Lance and Lawrence (The Looming Tower) Wright; or the vivid recollections of Kristin (Wake-up Call) Breitweiser and the self-serving apologia (Without Precedent) of Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton; despite the National Geographic Channel's eviscerated version of Lance's book; despite Court TV's documentary embrace of On Native Soil, based on the discredited 9/11 Commission report; despite Spike TV's ode to metalworkers and millions of downloads of Loose Change; despite CBS's re-run of the same French documentary it aired years ago; and yes! despite ABC's cretinous and much-discussed docudrama The Path to 9/11 - despite it all, all the bluster, all the recriminations, all the posturing, all the politics and all the media attention, attention still must be paid.
Attention - first to the families, our touchstones who suffered more than any and who still seek deliverance from that suffering in their unending search for the truth of what happened. Attention next to the many questions about 9/11 that remain unanswered - questions large and small, new and old; such as why the Pentagon held back so much information about air defense deficiencies from the 9/11 commission that Chairmen Kean and Hamilton came close to asking the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation; such as why the dozens of pre-attack warnings pouring into Washington were ignored; such as why the Able Danger intelligence program, which purportedly uncovered evidence of five active Al Qaeda cells and identified four of the eventual hijackers months before the attacks, was ignored and closed down; such as why Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape from Afghanistan when cornered in Tora Bora; such as why evidence of Pakistani intelligence involvement in the 9/11 plot has been ignored and covered up.
Attention fully paid, then, to "press for truth" (the title of another 9/11-related documentary I am an executive producer of) about what actually happened, how it happened, and who helped make it happen - as a means of finally approaching the reality of why it happened - and perhaps in the course of that search, ensuring that it can never happen again.
A logical starting point, and something that some family members spoke out for at a recent press conference in Washington, DC, is to support calls for a new, reopened, and non-partisan investigation. There is little doubt that that the 9/11 commission report has become the Warren commission report of our time - a fatally flawed official examination that ended up raising more questions than it answered, owing to a toxic brew of politics, partisanship, personal agendas and presidential obstruction. Chairman Thomas Kean's recent paid involvement with ABC's fictitious "historical" docudrama is but the latest reminder that the 9/11 tragedy has yet to be investigated fully or fairly - or in a NON-partisan (as opposed to BI-partisan!) manner.
Both Kean and his Democratic Party counterpart Lee Hamilton now acknowledge that the Pentagon didn't play straight with them, and that they and their fellow commissioners bowed to political pressure when they didn't fully question New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani about his management decisions and emergency responses. Other commissioners complained repeatedly about White House obstacles put in their path - yet the commissioners chose to issue their report nonetheless, even in the face of staff objections that there wasn't enough time to follow all leads.
The commissioners also allowed the president and vice president to testify together (and not under oath) and went along with other administration demands, such as the one that only a minority of the commissioners could see a minority of the documents requested - and even then had to vet their notes with the White House before sharing them with the full Commission! So Kean's paid advisory role to the discredited ABC miniseries is best understood as just the latest evidence of his shattered credibility - and that of his commission as well.
At the risk of stating the obvious, let me conclude by noting that we can never move beyond 9/11 until we obtain a fuller understanding of the events of that day and what underlies them. And until we have a complete, thorough and non-partisan investigation, that will never happen. We must continue to "press for truth" in connection with the events of September 11, 2001 - for we still don't know the true "path to 9/11" and until we do, we can never find the path from 9/11.
|
| Quote: | New Book from 9/11 Widow: "Jersey Girl" Kristen Breitweiser
Wake-Up Call: The Political Education of a Widow
Published September 2006
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wake-up-Call-Political-Education-Widow/dp/0446 579327/ref=sr_11_1/202-9978068-8209408?ie=UTF8
Kristen didn't know what he was saying. He told her to turn on the television. He continued. "They are jumping out of the windows. Right across from me...Sweets, I'm safe...But I have to go." The call ended abruptly and Kristen watched with horror as the second tower exploded. In that frozen instant, she felt in her heart that Ron had been killed.
WAKE-UP CALL is the deeply personal, often shocking, and ultimately inspirational story of a woman whose world was shattered by terrorism-and who, with no husband by her side or father for her child, found the courage and strength to not only build a new life, but become one of the country's most outspoken activists and harshest critics of the current administration.
A former Republican, Breitweiser, along with three other 9/11 widows (known to the media as "The Jersey Girls"), fought tirelessly for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, in spite of strong opposition from President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and many other top government officials. While describing her journey, Breitweiser discloses eye-opening information about mistakes made prior to the 9/11 attacks, cover-ups discovered during her campaign for the 9/11 Commission, surprising encounters with some of the country's most powerful officials, and unsettling facts about present-day national security.
Moving, hard-hitting, and revelatory, Kristen Breitweiser's book is a wake-up call no American can ignore. |
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread started with such promise, but rapidly deteriorated into a personal grudge match - a great pity.
People are also still prone to continually use blatant Americanisms, abbreviations and phrases that they forget aren't universally known or accepted, particularly in the UK.
Aggle-rithm is a master of semantic chicanery - an example;
'..support some cool "the gumbint didit" hypothesis'.
I have no clue what this refers to, perhaps we can attempt to inject more clarity with simpler terminology?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find any such posting most encouraging
This is critics corner after all, and if critics distract themselves from issues it only shows a difficulty in critiquing them
I am not in the habit of permitting threads I initiate to be diverted: but I am interested in genuine communication and investigative dialogue
So far the Jersey girlsinformation is standing upremarkably well at demonstrating there is a case to answer in writing off the 911Commission as a whitewash: and the case is mounting by the day
Ultimately, if critics canot demonstrate otherwise, good concscience will require them to support the campaigns call for a new commission
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
'..support some cool "the gumbint didit" hypothesis'.
I have no clue what this refers to, perhaps we can attempt to inject more clarity with simpler terminology? |
"the government did it" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bratcat808
Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Tiny rock in big water
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: |
'..support some cool "the gumbint didit" hypothesis'.
I have no clue what this refers to, perhaps we can attempt to inject more clarity with simpler terminology? |
"the government did it" |
Born and raised USA, I had no idea what that meant either! 
However, I am in Hawaii, so we have our own dialects and local slangs as well. You know, da kine i mean... 
What the truth of 9/11 will do is blow apart many of those faith based ideologies, and though I feel the truth needs to be known, the reality is that simply 'knowing' will not be an end, but only the beginning of trying to re-align how we all feel about our world and each other.
_________________
9/11 Truth
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." T. Jefferson
Last edited by bratcat808 on Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | circumstanial evidence? theres so much of it when does it not become circumstantial in your mind? |
Circumstantial evidence doesn't become direct evidence merely by virtue of its volume.
Are you saying you now have DIRECT evidence that the US government was behind the attacks? |
i didnt mention the us goverment. but yes there is lots of direct evidence to suggest 9/11 needs reinvestigating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Once someone lies to me, they lose credibility, and I find it difficult to believe anything they say subsequently. Apparently you're willing to believe people that repeatedly lie to you. In any event, given their lies and deceit, we have no way of knowing whether they are covering up their incompetence, or maybe worse. |
my feelings exactly.
the fact you guys find the idea of questioning the officially story so disgusting says a lot about you. Take for example your behaviour regarding mr Jowenko.. you phone him up with the intention to change his mind to match that of yours.. you assume you know the official story is entirely true first.. and then tell an expert how to think.
then you get all upset when he doesn't agree with you.
| Quote: |
yes, he was able to determine it was CD by one video ?
...taken from the wrong angle? |
wrong angle? so you decide what the right angle is then?
| Quote: | | I'm dissapointed that when some experts conclude it is CD then some of you use the same tactics as the CT'ers. Video evidence and improper information... Don't we agree that eyewitnesses are not reliable "that was a military plane" and if there are videos and pictures then even that is not good.. |
what? eyewitnessess are not realiable? what about all those firefighters who apparently knew the building was going to collapse into its footprint?
videos and pictures are not good are they not?
| Quote: | | There are a lot of explosive demo experts who know a hell of a lot more about WTC #7 than Jowenko ever could. |
so jowenko has less thinking potential than the 'experts' who agree with you?
so much confidence you have, and NIST aren't even that confident they know how it happened.infact they haven't drawn any conclusions at all.
you guys really neeed to take a step back and look at how you are approaching all this
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | So far the Jersey girls information is standing up remarkably well at demonstrating there is a case to answer in writing off the 911Commission as a whitewash: and the case is mounting by the day
Ultimately, if critics canot demonstrate otherwise, good conscience will require them to support the campaigns call for a new commission
|
I'm quite serious
Will Critics support the Campaigns call for a New 9/11 Commission to establish the facts based on the Jersey girls information of how the first commission was whitewashed?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bratcat808 wrote: | Born and raised USA, I had no idea what that meant either!
|
Perhaps because I misspelled it... should be "the gubmint didit".
The first person I heard this from was a Dane, so it's not an American phrase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right everyone, this fresh in, good stuff in 'ere
| Quote: |
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100206X.shtml
Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 02 October 2006
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have committed perjury in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in May of 2004. At a minimum, her testimony was a convenient mishmash of half-truths and omissions which served to paint the White House as innocent bystanders as the attacks of 9/11 unfolded. Certainly, her testimony omitted the fact that the two most senior intelligence officials in the nation delivered a stern warning regarding an impending terror attack two full months before 9/11.
Sunday's edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled "Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice." The story described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice's attention to the looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, "State of Denial."
"Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts," read the Post story, "and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined 'Bin Laden Threats Are Real.' Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself ... Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment - covert, military, whatever - to thwart bin Laden."
The meeting, according to Tenet and Black, went nowhere. "Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies," the Post story reported. "Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place."
"Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated," continued the Post story. "Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Black later said, 'The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.'"
The Post story concluded with a remarkable Editor's Note: "How much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush's 'neocons' and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks. Rice responded in an interview that 'what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.'"
This comment suggests the entire Post story was inspired by former President Clinton's remarkable denunciation of the Bush administration's efforts to thwart bin Laden in a recent Fox News interview. The seriousness of this meeting, however, goes far beyond political sniping and gamesmanship.
Peter Rundlet served as counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and has accused the White House of hiding the meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice from the commission. Rundlet practiced at the influential law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and was formerly associate counsel to the president and a White House Fellow, serving in the Office of Chief of Staff to the President, before joining the commission.
Writing for the online news magazine Think Progress, Rundlet stated, "Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation, questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the commission been told about this significant meeting. Suspiciously, the commissioners and the staff investigating the administration's actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the meeting. As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick pointed out, 'We didn't know about the meeting itself. I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.'"
This is a remarkable revelation in and of itself. The head of CIA and the head of CIA's counterterrorism branch delivered a warning in the strongest possible terms to Ms. Rice two months before the attack, yet this meeting was not revealed to the 9/11 Commission. It may well have remained a historical non-event had Woodward not written about it.
Which brings us to Ms. Rice's sworn testimony in May 2004 before the commission.
At one point in this hearing, Commission Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton directly asked Rice about the so-called intelligence failures leading up to 9/11: "At the end of the day, of course, we were unable to protect our people. And you suggest in your statement - and I want you to elaborate on this, if you want to - that in hindsight it would have been - better information about the threats would have been the single - the single most important thing for us to have done, from your point of view, prior to 9/11, would have been better intelligence, better information about the threats. Is that right? Are there other things that you think stand out?"
Rice responded, "Well, Mr. Chairman, I took an oath of office on the day that I took this job to protect and defend. And like most government officials, I take it very seriously. And so, as you might imagine, I've asked myself a thousand times what more we could have done. I know that, had we thought that there was an attack coming in Washington or New York, we would have moved heaven and earth to try and stop it. And I know that there was no single thing that might have prevented that attack."
Not only did Rice fail to mention the dramatic warnings given to her by Tenet and Black, she goes on to flatly state that neither she nor the administration had a clue that an attack was coming. Further, she claims that "no single thing could have prevented that attack."
"The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks," read the Post report on Sunday, "but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda."
Combined with the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing delivered to Bush, which explicitly stated that bin Laden intended to attack the United States, the revelation of this meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice indicates that the Bush White House should have and could have made a far greater effort at thwarting the 9/11 attacks. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on the matter may rise to the level of perjury. At a minimum, it exposes yet another nest of lies delivered by a member of this administration.
"A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me," wrote Peter Rundlet in his Think Progress article, "when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward's new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001. If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know."
Indeed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation, will be available this winter from PoliPointPress. |
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The Post story concluded with a remarkable Editor's Note: "How much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush's 'neocons' and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks. Rice responded in an interview that 'what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.'" |
This is very interesting
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | | The Post story concluded with a remarkable Editor's Note: "How much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush's 'neocons' and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks. Rice responded in an interview that 'what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.'" |
This is very interesting |
How so? To me, it seems like a typical political p*ssing contest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing happens by chance in politics: remember Clinton's wife is a probable candidate for the White House. There are no "off the cuff" comments at that level. That Clinton is attacking the Bush Admin on the basis of prior knowledge indicates a direct move to claim some of the 911 doubting electorate for the cause of "vote democratic for change"
Which would of course be just another monumental fraud, but it shows the ground that 911 truth is gaining: and when it comes to pawning prior knowledge and the whitewashing of the commission, the Jersey Girls deliver the goods
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Nothing happens by chance in politics: remember Clinton's wife is a probable candidate for the White House. There are no "off the cuff" comments at that level. That Clinton is attacking the Bush Admin on the basis of prior knowledge indicates a direct move to claim some of the 911 doubting electorate for the cause of "vote democratic for change"
Which would of course be just another monumental fraud, but it shows the ground that 911 truth is gaining: and when it comes to pawning prior knowledge and the whitewashing of the commission, the Jersey Girls deliver the goods |
This has nothing to do with the Truth Movement. This dispute has been going on quietly since Sept. 12, 2001. The Bushies claim Clinton created the conditions for the attack to happen by his "soft" "law enforcement" approach to terrorism. The Clintonites claim Bush ignored Bin Laden and downplayed al Qaeda as a threat until 9/11. There is absolutely nothing new about this.
I think you've got it right, though, that this dispute is being raised again right now because of the upcoming election. Such is politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | This has nothing to do with the Truth Movement. This dispute has been going on quietly since Sept. 12, 2001. The Bushies claim Clinton created the conditions for the attack to happen by his "soft" "law enforcement" approach to terrorism. The Clintonites claim Bush ignored Bin Laden and downplayed al Qaeda as a threat until 9/11. There is absolutely nothing new about this.
I think you've got it right, though, that this dispute is being raised again right now because of the upcoming election. Such is politics. |
True. I think the only part that's new is that Clinton himself is being so vocal about it. Immediately after the attacks he pledged full support for Bush as sitting president, but that goodwill (whether real or staged) has been slowly wearing off ever since. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for the opinion that there is no connection between this info about Clinton's statement and "pressfortruth"
Its nonesense of course, there clearly is
Proof of prior knowledge is a key part of pawning the neocons for perjuring themselves before the american people and the world: its not a case being made by the MSM, its a case coming stright from 9/11 truth: its certainly not coming from skeptics
For Clinton to use this angle for part political ends can only show that his focus groups are placing 9/11 truth high on the list of feedback from target voters: I would advise informing yourselves of the role of psychology in political campaigning
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6884155963216756796&q=The+Cen tury+of+The+Self
Its both good news, in that it shows the penetration the truth campaign in making, especially in the light of the Scripps Howard Poll, and bad news, in that Clinton is as guilty as sin too and the campaign must be warry of having its clothes nicked by those who would fob off the people with "911 Truth Lite"
Which isnt going to work of course
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
