| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: The troofers reveal themselves. |
 |
|
It is very instructive to read the responses on this board to the London car bombs and the Glasgow attack. There is an immediate assumption, without any evidence at all, that these are false flag operations. The very occasional voice suggesting that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence before reaching a conclusion, or that there might sometimes be genuine terrorist attacks, is swept aside in the rush to assume that some government agency is involved.
What clearer evidence could there be that the ironically named truthseekers have no interest whatsoever in truth?
Belief without any evidence is the mark of a religion, not a search for truth. A cult is what you are, and all you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| don't worry im sure you can make up things to answer anyones concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: The troofers reveal themselves. |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | It is very instructive to read the responses on this board to the London car bombs and the Glasgow attack. There is an immediate assumption, without any evidence at all, that these are false flag operations. The very occasional voice suggesting that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence before reaching a conclusion, or that there might sometimes be genuine terrorist attacks, is swept aside in the rush to assume that some government agency is involved.
What clearer evidence could there be that the ironically named truthseekers have no interest whatsoever in truth?
Belief without any evidence is the mark of a religion, not a search for truth. A cult is what you are, and all you are. |
Well you said that post number 1 and here you are post number over one thousand
What does that say about you?
If we are so irrelevant why are you still here? A bit ritually obsessed yourself
Plus all your remarking upon is the simple duality between those who believe what the government says relfexively and those who disbelieve what the government says reflexively: I don't see you lambasting society as being part of a "Cult of Normalcy" though you should
And guess what? Theres more than a few things about recent events that certainly don't add up...
Thats when the Truthseeking begins...
And you are powerless to do anything about it, trapped in your dreadful fascination...
Oh dear! Your a bit pathetic really, arn't you?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: The troofers reveal themselves. |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | It is very instructive to read the responses on this board to the London car bombs and the Glasgow attack. There is an immediate assumption, without any evidence at all, that these are false flag operations. The very occasional voice suggesting that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence before reaching a conclusion, or that there might sometimes be genuine terrorist attacks, is swept aside in the rush to assume that some government agency is involved.
What clearer evidence could there be that the ironically named truthseekers have no interest whatsoever in truth?
Belief without any evidence is the mark of a religion, not a search for truth. A cult is what you are, and all you are. |
I don't think it is accurate or fair to pretend that all posters on the non-bombs believed a particular unconventional version of events.
Sure, there is a general level of suspicion and scepticism when it come to official versions of such events. And that is justifiably heightened when the events are as odd as those in Glasgow and London, and when the reactions to them are so distorted and overblown.
Of course, some posters made statements based on assumptions about the identity of those whom they suspected to be the real perpetrators or puppeteers. But others pointed out that it was "too early to tell" or talked hypothetically about one possibility or another.
As John White points out, the assumption that "everything is as it seems", which people are encouraged to believe by our education system and supine media (among others), is a faith-based belief in itself and one that 95%-plus of the population believe. Do you also question this far more prevalent belief?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to be honest here and say that I find the leap-before-you-look assumptions that every loose cannon was fired by MI5/6, the CIA or Mossad a bit wearisome. I rarely have time to even rub a couple of brain cells together before there is a detailed hypothesis on here.
That said, I do keep my ears open to the vocis populi and folk who don't normally say very much about subjects like 9/11 have been pointing to the peculiarities of recent events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: The troofers reveal themselves. |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | It is very instructive to read the responses on this board to the London car bombs and the Glasgow attack. There is an immediate assumption, without any evidence at all, that these are false flag operations. The very occasional voice suggesting that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence before reaching a conclusion, or that there might sometimes be genuine terrorist attacks, is swept aside in the rush to assume that some government agency is involved.
What clearer evidence could there be that the ironically named truthseekers have no interest whatsoever in truth?
Belief without any evidence is the mark of a religion, not a search for truth. A cult is what you are, and all you are. |
Well you said that post number 1 and here you are post number over one thousand
|
But I did not say that in my post number 1.
That is something easily checked, but you didn't bother because it is something you wished to believe was true to fit your preconceived idea. That says all that needs to be said about "truthseekers", even the marginally less dim ones, and illustrates remarkably quickly just what I said above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: The troofers reveal themselves. |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | That says all that needs to be said about "truthseekers", even the marginally less dim ones, and illustrates remarkably quickly just what I said above. |
You are generalising on the basis of a single allegedly inaccurate comment from one "truthseeker" (presumably you seek something other than truth...) to condemn "truthseekers" in general?! WTF. That is a logical fallacy of immense proportions and frankly ridiculous.
It seems to me you are primarily demonstrating your own faith-based illogical assertions (irrespective of any alleged similar prejudices in those you seek to target).
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:12 am Post subject: Re: The troofers reveal themselves. |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | That says all that needs to be said about "truthseekers", even the marginally less dim ones, and illustrates remarkably quickly just what I said above. |
You are generalising on the basis of a single allegedly inaccurate comment from one "truthseeker" (presumably you seek something other than truth...) to condemn "truthseekers" in general?! WTF. That is a logical fallacy of immense proportions and frankly ridiculous.
It seems to me you are primarily demonstrating your own faith-based illogical assertions (irrespective of any alleged similar prejudices in those you seek to target). |
So you consider John White to be a poor and unrepresentative example of a "truthseeker" ? You may be right, but I had gained rather a different impression, and anyway I was not generalising on the basis of one person's behaviour, but that behaviour taken together with the general behaviour in relation to the recent terrorist attacks on which I first commented.
I acknowledge that there are some in the truth movement who are prepared to look dispassionately and logically at the evidence, but they are remarkably few and far between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I always thought it very, very suspicious that within hours the 19 arabs did it with boxcutters official version, along with photofits and profiles was produced, and we had al qaeda dun it on the news every minute.
Its the same for all sorts of events, a sack of chapati flour discovered, instantly the news lackies are rabid with reports and computer graphics showing the damage the super bomb would have made by qaedas/mujahadeen databasers within seconds, 'experts' wheeled out on TV instantly, assuring us all its those baddie qaedas doing it because they hate out freedoms.
As regards the qaedas/databasers doing glasgow and planning to do London, perhaps you see a different version of MSM to the rest of us. All i hear within seconds is bomb plot qaedas are doing it repeated ad nauseam for days on end. 'Terror experts' produced within seconds appearing on BBC news 24 telling us all its qaedas/databasers.
Of course the fact the official storyline was changing on a daily basis, along with gaping holes in the official story arouses suspicion immediately, its not that long ago, we had eyewitnesses produced on TV and radio within seconds of De Menezes being executed in public, along with police officials telling us all, HE WAS SPRINTING IN HIS THICK OVERCOAT WITH WIRES PROTRUDING FAILING TO STOP DESPITE NUMEROUS WARNINGS. Weeks and weeks of another qaedas/databasers plot was foiled.
Again those crazy 'troofers' were trying to tell you, hang on a minute, look at the inconcistancies in the official story again, and what happens, well suprise suprise, the official version turned out to be bullsh*t again.
De Menezes wasant sprinting and hurdling barriers as truthers pointed out at the time, why were the eyewitnesses that contradicted the official version of lies denied mainstream media coverage, that liewitness produced within seconds on TV and radio whose version matched the official pack of lies was shown endlessly, De Menezes was wearing a T shirt, no hurdling barriers, the police just stalked him and pumped how many bullets to the back of his head, 12 was it? That version only came out after the official version stated he was shot in the torso, when truthers questioned why a man suspected ofcarrying a suicide belt was shot in the torso, people like you said, you truthers are crazy to question the official version of events.
So the mercedes was driving erratically and crashed into a bin, the driver fled leaving a car door open, bouncers from anearby nightclub went to investigate, and raised the alarm, qaedas are plotting, the news reports instantly, the official storyline then gets changed to, mercedes parked up neatly, ambulance drives by, notices smoke coming from the car, investigates, defuses a gas bottlebomb/device and raises the alarm.
yep move right along, just ignore the inconsistancies lies again shall we, and do as people like you do, label people who highlight inconsistacies as crazy 'troofers'. Yep you are convincing me to join you and become a non crazy liemaker.
The official version says we have a crystal clear CCTV image of the mercedes gasbottler, although the terrorist is on the run, he is most wanted, but we are not going to release the crystal clear CCTV image to help catch him.
perhaps truthseekers should just go along with the liemakers as you suggest, and not question or raise awareness of government agencies hamfisted lies and inconsistancies, the De Menezes case is a good refrence point.
Do you wish we abandon truthseeking, and join you and your merry band of liemakers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I see you are one of those who naively expect a complete and final version of an event to be produced immediately it happens, all angles covered, every possible witness and piece of evidence produced and evaluated. The real world is not like that, there is no "official story" as troofers like to pretend. After any unexpected event the media are all casting around trying to get information for themselves from witnesses at the scene as well as from informal contacts in the emergency services and official briefings. The police are themselves starting to investigate and are likely to have only a limited knowledge of what happened. Of course there are partial and conflicting reports, that is inevitable. Of course there are various experts coming out with their own theories as the media cast around for information. There is even the loony fringe saying it was all MI5, Mossad, the Illuminati, Bilderbergers or lizards. In the de Menezes case there were also obvious attampts by the police to excuse themselves. In real life it takes time for the full picture to emerge. The experts saying it was an al Qaeda hit may turn out to be just as wrong as the troofers claiming it was MI5, but they tend not only to be much better informed but to qualify their comments, not a practice adopted by troofers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pathetic bushwacker
I'll tell you what I expect.
I expect people to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty
I expect the media not to prejudice any trial with hysterical coverage
I expect a healthy degree of scepticism from commentators on the official version of events (based on prior precedent) and a recognition that UK authorities have a long and dishonourable tradition of planting evidence and fitting up innocent people as terrorists
Just remember the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 etc etc
None of which is to say that all terrorist attacks are connected back to the state, just that many of them are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I see you are one of those who naively expect a complete and final version of an event to be produced immediately it happens, all angles covered, every possible witness and piece of evidence produced and evaluated. The real world is not like that, there is no "official story" as troofers like to pretend. After any unexpected event the media are all casting around trying to get information for themselves from witnesses at the scene as well as from informal contacts in the emergency services and official briefings. The police are themselves starting to investigate and are likely to have only a limited knowledge of what happened. Of course there are partial and conflicting reports, that is inevitable. Of course there are various experts coming out with their own theories as the media cast around for information. There is even the loony fringe saying it was all MI5, Mossad, the Illuminati, Bilderbergers or lizards. [color=red]In the de Menezes case there were also obvious attampts by the police to excuse themselves[/color]. In real life it takes time for the full picture to emerge. The experts saying it was an al Qaeda hit may turn out to be just as wrong as the troofers claiming it was MI5, but they tend not only to be much better informed but to qualify their comments, not a practice adopted by troofers. |
you mean the final version of, 19 arabs armed with a couple of boxcutters living in caves bypassing the whole of the US airforce and bypassing the pentagons anti missile defense, and all their profiles and pictures paraded by media, and backed up with intel agencies proclaiming it was qaedas/databasers that dun it, within hours of the attacks, do you mean those kind of final version of events, all angles covered immediately?  If there is no official story why do the liemakers continually back the official version despite the obvious lies?
Of course there is 'experts on terrorism wheeled out' thats not in dispute, what i find highly suspicious, is that the 'experts' seem to be waiting in the studios 15 minutes after the event has happened, hmmm, so the incident has happened, and the expert somehow gets up no matter the hour sometimes in the early hours of the morning, rushes through London, sometimes in the rush hour, all within 15 minutes of the 'attack', gets wired up, make up put on, ready for the 'all the hallmarks' of qaeda' dun it.
In the de Menezes case there were also obvious attampts by the police to excuse themselves
you have a very very strange way of expressing things, you have the evidence of the police planting a liewitness, paraded on the TV, reeling off word for word their version of events, hurdling, thick coat, wires protruding etc. a clear case of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and you expalin it as excusing themselves.  Thats even more hilarious than your 'video artifacts' diatribe.
If liemakers are left unchalleged then we would all believe De Menezes was a suicide bomber, its only because theres dedicated people out there, who's only crime is wanting truth, and there's people like you and other liemakers who seem to have a pathological obsession with people wanting truth and answers. Hmm i wonder why
yes i am one of the people who naively believe my intellegence forces are expected to tell me the truth, why they even tell me repeatedly they are out their to protect me, how naive i am to expect to believe every word they say.
perhaps you have another ridiculous phrase to describe the offical story of, 19 arabs armed with boxcutters bypassed the whole US defense sytem? the real and only liemakeing version of offical events of what happened on 9/11 perhaps? no doubt you can exceed your video artifacts or the police excusing themselves claptrap diatribe? perhaps another 2 week break, to plot your answer will save you from more ridicule, i doubt it though.
We still have the lunatic fringe on the liemaking side of official fairytales regarding 9/11, they still believe 19 arabs with boxcutters did 9/11, because they hate us because we are free.
another case of our leaders ''excusing themselves''.  
you really are pathetic and transparent.
keep those video artifacts and police excusing themselves liemaking dogmas coming.
[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Pathetic bushwacker
I'll tell you what I expect.
I expect people to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty
I expect the media not to prejudice any trial with hysterical coverage
I expect a healthy degree of scepticism from commentators on the official version of events (based on prior precedent) and a recognition that UK authorities have a long and dishonourable tradition of planting evidence and fitting up innocent people as terrorists
Just remember the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 etc etc
None of which is to say that all terrorist attacks are connected back to the state, just that many of them are. |
You expect men who emerge from a burning jeep driven into an airport terminal building, fighting policemen who come near, and pouring out more petrol, to be presumed innocent by the media, while you have no apparent objection at all to all the posts on this board assuming, without any evidence, that actually the security services are guilty of this?
To use the vernacular, you are having a laugh, aren't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: |
you mean the final version of, 19 arabs armed with a couple of boxcutters living in caves bypassing the whole of the US airforce and bypassing the pentagons anti missile defense |
I am always fascinated by troofers obsession that bin Laden was living in a cave, or your even more extreme version that they were all living in caves. Is there something about living in a cave that makes it impossible to be a terrorist? In any event, the "official story" as you would call it is that bin Laden was living in a very large training camp prior to the invasion of Aghanistan, and only later fled to the caves of Tora Bora.
Now you have also invented an anti-missile defence system for the Pentagon.
You have still failed to provide any evidence about your story about Atta's passport flying several blocks from the WTC.
Your are a prime exponant of the "straw man" argument it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: The troofers reveal themselves. |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Craig W wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | That says all that needs to be said about "truthseekers", even the marginally less dim ones, and illustrates remarkably quickly just what I said above. |
You are generalising on the basis of a single allegedly inaccurate comment from one "truthseeker" (presumably you seek something other than truth...) to condemn "truthseekers" in general?! WTF. That is a logical fallacy of immense proportions and frankly ridiculous.
It seems to me you are primarily demonstrating your own faith-based illogical assertions (irrespective of any alleged similar prejudices in those you seek to target). |
So you consider John White to be a poor and unrepresentative example of a "truthseeker" ? You may be right, but I had gained rather a different impression, and anyway I was not generalising on the basis of one person's behaviour, but that behaviour taken together with the general behaviour in relation to the recent terrorist attacks on which I first commented.
I acknowledge that there are some in the truth movement who are prepared to look dispassionately and logically at the evidence, but they are remarkably few and far between. |
Could you explain to me how one is to judge the representativeness of a truthseeker? I know of no method and have no idea if John White is representative or not.
I am simply saying that to condemn all so-called "truthseekers" (as if people should be seeking something else) on the basis of an allegedly inaccurate comment from JW (sorry, but I couldn't be bothered whether that claim was correct or not) is ridiculous and illogical.
I would agree that some on here are too quick to assume that every event is not as it seems, just as the vast majority of most people (ie "non-truthseekers") are too quick to conclude that all events are as they seem. I asked before but you missed it, so I'll rephrase it: do you also berate these millions for their naivety in the face of the known history of conspiracies, false flag attacks and other subterfuge? Or do you reserve your opprobrium for a few dozen harmless, and presumably in your view deluded, conspiracy theorists [What an awful and meaningless term! - CW]?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Belief without any evidence is the mark of a religion, not a search for truth. A cult is what you are, and all you are. "
I 'believe' evidence is withheld and thats proveably true!
Posting an opinion does not make someone a 'believer'.
I 'believe' any event that can be labelled a terrorist threat will be used as an excuse to degrade individual rights... and thats proveably true!
I 'believe' the mainstream media routinely lie to the public.... proveably true again.
I 'know' the Police can set people up.
"What clearer evidence could there be that the ironically named truthseekers have no interest whatsoever in truth?"
How about just about anything, as there is no evidence that we don't have an interest in the truth.
There is evidence we don't accept things at face value.
Tell me Bushwacker about some of the Genuine Terrorist Attacks?
And whats a 'Cult'? Why is it bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you have looked at July 7 and 21 you will know that there are awkward questions regarding the connections back to the security services.
Whilst the 2 guys who crashed the jeep into Glasgow airport clearly have legitimate questions to answer no presumption of guilt especially against the other people arrested should be made. To do so could prejudice a fair trial. It is entirely consistent to believe that some of those arrested are guily of terrorism and suspect that the security services may have been in some way involved
My basic position is yes I believe there are jihadi terrorists and jihadi terorist attacks. But there are also strong grounds to believe there are state security agents connected to jihadi terrorism and helping to facilitate terrorist attacks.
The secret history of the British state's involvement in Irish terrorism shows that this is no ridiculous proposition. Now run a long |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: |
you mean the final version of, 19 arabs armed with a couple of boxcutters living in caves bypassing the whole of the US airforce and bypassing the pentagons anti missile defense |
I am always fascinated by troofers obsession that bin Laden was living in a cave, or your even more extreme version that they were all living in caves. Is there something about living in a cave that makes it impossible to be a terrorist? In any event, the "official story" as you would call it is that bin Laden was living in a very large training camp prior to the invasion of Aghanistan, and only later fled to the caves of Tora Bora.
Now you have also invented an anti-missile defence system for the Pentagon.
You have still failed to provide any evidence about your story about Atta's passport flying several blocks from the WTC.
Your are a prime exponant of the "straw man" argument it seems. |
yep ive been had again, why am i so naive to believe the MSM when they say OBL lived in a cave.
So with your logic, i am wrong when i question the official stories, and i am wrong when i believe them.
What?, those pentagon mouthpieces were lying again when they stated the pentagon was protected by anti missile systems and they were 'turned off' on that fateful day of 9/11? if you think its a lie then blame the PR men at the pentagon who issued those statements. My only 'crime' is remembering them saying it'.
I call it the official story, what do you call it?
whats the point of providing a link to atta's passport, everylink i give you say is unreliable, i give you telegraph links, you say its unreliable while when you post the telegraph links, they somehow are reliable.
so, i ask again, give me sources that you accept as 'reliable' or acceptable for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: |
My basic position is yes I believe there are jihadi terrorists and jihadi terorist attacks. But there are also strong grounds to believe there are state security agents connected to jihadi terrorism and helping to facilitate terrorist attacks.
|
That may well be your basic position, but the position adopted by the overwhelming majority of posters on the news thread was that there was no such thing as jihadi terrorist attacks, and they immediately assumed the recent such apparent attacks were false flag operations by the security services. That was exactly what I said and perhaps if you had read what I said more carefully and thought about it for a moment your comments might have been more meaningful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | ian neal wrote: |
My basic position is yes I believe there are jihadi terrorists and jihadi terorist attacks. But there are also strong grounds to believe there are state security agents connected to jihadi terrorism and helping to facilitate terrorist attacks.
|
That may well be your basic position, but the position adopted by the overwhelming majority of posters on the news thread was that there was no such thing as jihadi terrorist attacks, and they immediately assumed the recent such apparent attacks were false flag operations by the security services. That was exactly what I said and perhaps if you had read what I said more carefully and thought about it for a moment your comments might have been more meaningful. |
What , you mean you are not editing the responses out of context as usual?
i write linking 9/11 to start wars.
you invent my reply, of linking 9/11 to iraq.
i'm suprised you havant invented some mythical replies here, or taken quotes out of context.
Do you have selective reading syndrome? why would you keep inventing a posters response of what they are supposed to have said? or continually copy and paste replies out of context? I give you the benefit of the doubt and say selective reading syndrome, others may come to the conclusion your red herrings are altogehter more sinister. Bushwacker the anti truther, red herringing his way in smearing anyone who's only crime is wanting the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: |
you mean the final version of, 19 arabs armed with a couple of boxcutters living in caves bypassing the whole of the US airforce and bypassing the pentagons anti missile defense |
I am always fascinated by troofers obsession that bin Laden was living in a cave, or your even more extreme version that they were all living in caves. Is there something about living in a cave that makes it impossible to be a terrorist? In any event, the "official story" as you would call it is that bin Laden was living in a very large training camp prior to the invasion of Aghanistan, and only later fled to the caves of Tora Bora.
Now you have also invented an anti-missile defence system for the Pentagon.
You have still failed to provide any evidence about your story about Atta's passport flying several blocks from the WTC.
Your are a prime exponant of the "straw man" argument it seems. |
yep ive been had again, why am i so naive to believe the MSM when they say OBL lived in a cave.
So with your logic, i am wrong when i question the official stories, and i am wrong when i believe them.
What?, those pentagon mouthpieces were lying again when they stated the pentagon was protected by anti missile systems and they were 'turned off' on that fateful day of 9/11? if you think its a lie then blame the PR men at the pentagon who issued those statements. My only 'crime' is remembering them saying it'.
I call it the official story, what do you call it?
whats the point of providing a link to atta's passport, everylink i give you say is unreliable, i give you telegraph links, you say its unreliable while when you post the telegraph links, they somehow are reliable.
so, i ask again, give me sources that you accept as 'reliable' or acceptable for you? |
Do you have some trouble understanding English? I thought it was clear enough when I said "There is nothing wrong with your Telegraph link, it is just irrelevant because Bush did not use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq."
I think your problem is that you cannot provide links to what you say is part of the "official story" because it is not, it is a story you have invented in order to rubbish it. A strange way to seek the truth!
For your information:
Atta's passport was not found some blocks away from the WTC
The 19 hijackers did not live in a cave.
OBL did not live in cave prior to the invasion of Afghanistan
There is no evidence that the Pentagon had anti-missile defences.
You are wrong on each of these four items. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | ian neal wrote: |
My basic position is yes I believe there are jihadi terrorists and jihadi terorist attacks. But there are also strong grounds to believe there are state security agents connected to jihadi terrorism and helping to facilitate terrorist attacks.
|
That may well be your basic position, but the position adopted by the overwhelming majority of posters on the news thread was that there was no such thing as jihadi terrorist attacks, and they immediately assumed the recent such apparent attacks were false flag operations by the security services. That was exactly what I said and perhaps if you had read what I said more carefully and thought about it for a moment your comments might have been more meaningful. |
Well here's your basic mistake, your assuming that posters who respond on a thread are speaking for posters who didnt post on a thread: but the majority of threads on forums have ten times more views than posts
Essentially, your simply filtering through your prior assumptions and the needs of your personal agenda
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
first you said the telegraph link was unreliable, not irrelevant, later you sideshuffled your response to irrelevant, a common tactic of you twisting even your own reponses now.
The trouble is when i provide a link, you dismiss it, first as unreliable, when the point is made you use the telegraph as reilable, you squirm and change it to irrelevant.
I ask you to post your refrence sites as to what you deem reliable and you are silent again.
We dont know who the hijackers are, so how do we know where they live? i only repeat what the offficials paraded on TV said, is your selective memory syndrome kicking in again? cant you remember richard pearle et al saying they live in caves? it was said so many times i cannot imagine how you choose to balnk it out?
the same with attas passport, so many white house mouthpieces wheeled out spouting attas passport found. I only repeat the absurdity of the governments pro war public relations men.
Are you saying the whitehouse and pentagon people lied about the pentagons anti missile defense too? i wonder what else they could be liemaking about?
perhaps you'd like to email Richard Perle about misleading us over the terrorists 'live in caves' and point out his lies to him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
first you said the telegraph link was unreliable, not irrelevant, later you sideshuffled your response to irrelevant, a common tactic of you twisting even your own reponses now.
The trouble is when i provide a link, you dismiss it, first as unreliable, when the point is made you use the telegraph as reilable, you squirm and change it to irrelevant.
I ask you to post your refrence sites as to what you deem reliable and you are silent again.
We dont know who the hijackers are, so how do we know where they live? i only repeat what the offficials paraded on TV said, is your selective memory syndrome kicking in again? cant you remember richard pearle et al saying they live in caves? it was said so many times i cannot imagine how you choose to balnk it out?
the same with attas passport, so many white house mouthpieces wheeled out spouting attas passport found. I only repeat the absurdity of the governments pro war public relations men.
Are you saying the whitehouse and pentagon people lied about the pentagons anti missile defense too? i wonder what else they could be liemaking about?
perhaps you'd like to email Richard Perle about misleading us over the terrorists 'live in caves' and point out his lies to him? |
Ah, so you are quoting what you think you remember some PR man once saying?
You cannot find any substantiation for this at all, can you?
You claim this is all part of the "official story" so prove that or retract it.
Since you seem to need my permission, I give you permission to quote from any part of the MSM, the 9/11 Commission report or any other official source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL! Well thats enough time in the Zoo, bored now...
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ian neal wrote: |
My basic position is yes I believe there are jihadi terrorists and jihadi terorist attacks. But there are also strong grounds to believe there are state security agents connected to jihadi terrorism and helping to facilitate terrorist attacks.
|
That may well be your basic position, but the position adopted by the overwhelming majority of posters on the news thread was that there was no such thing as jihadi terrorist attacks, and they immediately assumed the recent such apparent attacks were false flag operations by the security services. That was exactly what I said and perhaps if you had read what I said more carefully and thought about it for a moment your comments might have been more meaningful. |
Well here's your basic mistake, your assuming that posters who respond on a thread are speaking for posters who didnt post on a thread: but the majority of threads on forums have ten times more views than posts
Essentially, your simply filtering through your prior assumptions and the needs of your personal agenda |
Yes of course, four pages of posts on a topic may be entirely unrepresentative of the majority view on this forum. How silly of me!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | LOL! Well thats enough time in the Zoo, bored now... |
Yes, boredom is always a problem for zoo animals, you may find yourself indulging in repetitive and obsessive behaviour, such as rocking, pacing and self-mutilation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | there is no "official story" as troofers like to pretend. |
what's this then?
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
and I agree, the dustbin would be the best place for it.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
