9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

[Lucky boy]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You are aware bin Laden and al Qaeda never took credit for the attack? He praised the attacks and cheered the attacks, but he never made claims that it was anyone affiliated with al Qaeda. You are also aware that the FBI has never been able to find any evidence to link al Qaeda or bin Laden to 9/11 either. Just an interesting factoid I thought you should probably be aware of.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

(oh sorry, I forgot we aren't supposed to post links to support our claims)

I never knew that...

I heard about the reports of the people accused of hijacking the planes being alive and living in other countries though.

To be honest though, I still have a hard time believing that the government would do that much damage to their own country.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Link:

http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.p...oc&id=481&cn=8

Seems dumb to quote his stuff and insult him when you're on his ignore list. Though, I guess that makes it a lot easier to snipe without repercussion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lucky boy

I never knew that...

I heard about the reports of the people accused of hijacking the planes being alive and living in other countries though.

To be honest though, I still have a hard time believing that the government would do that much damage to their own country.

Don't read Lanny's posts if you want to have a "fair and balanced" viewpoint.

Go research it yourself.

Like Bingo said; Lanny is putting the simple-minded people into a position where we have to defend the simple viewpoint generally accepted by everyone, while for some reason the CT viewpoint runs as mainstream opinion, and DOESN'T need to be defended.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't read Lanny's posts if you want to have a "fair and balanced" viewpoint.

Go research it yourself.

Like Bingo said; Lanny is putting the simple-minded people into a position where we have to defend the simple viewpoint generally accepted by everyone, while for some reason the CT viewpoint runs as mainstream opinion, and DOESN'T need to be defended.

Hilarious! Because the 'mainstream' believes it it doesn't need to be defended? The 'mainstream' used to believe different races were inferior to each other. Thank God what the 'mainstream' believes isn't fact.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Hilarious! Because the 'mainstream' believes it it doesn't need to be defended? The 'mainstream' used to believe different races were inferior to each other. Thank God what the 'mainstream' believes isn't fact.

well mainstream gets updated each and every day with new information and people evolve. Women were at one time not allowed to vote (still don't in many parts of the world), there was segregation. The world was once considered flat. Saying people are proven wrong over time is hardly a great way to defend fringe beliefs in conspiracy theories.

However if you must you can also likely point back to 100 or so conspiracies that have been proven to be nothing of the sort, but I don't suspect you'd take that as proof as every current conspiracy theory is wrnog either.

My point stands though ... modern conspiracy theories always put the simple and logical answer on the stand and make them proof that two probable unrelated events are indeed unrelated. Pretty backwards if you ask me.

Like I said yesterday ... I took the bus to work today and the WTI oil price has fallen almost a buck. Can you prove those two events have no link?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't read Lanny's posts if you want to have a "fair and balanced" viewpoint.

WTF is THAT suspposed to mean? Are you trying to tell me that your posts present a "fair and balanced" viewpoint? Jesus, your head is so far up the government/military's ass it isn't funny, yet you provide balance?

Go research it yourself.

Hmmmm, isn't that what I encourage people to do ALL THE TIME??? I'm not telling people to believe anything. I'm putting stuff out there for people to consider as another explanation for events. I point out matters that dittoheads like yourself call "coincidences". I point to the flaws in the "official" story and look for evidence that proves it wrong. That evidence spurns conversation and debate which should spurn curiosity and encourages people to do the research themselves.

You know what's really hilarious in all of this? Bingo is the one who has been saying that HE refuses to look at alternative explanations/theories. HE's the one who is refusing to do the research. HE is the one swallowing a story without looking into the matter and educating himself on it, and making a decision based on the information available. HE is just like so many around here that take the "official" story as gospel, even when the official story turns out to be bull****. But out of this I am the one that is the wingnut because I have done the research, have done the critical analysis, and have formulated an argument based on what information I have found? Wait a second, didn't you just say to do the research? Isn't that what I have done and what people like Bingo have not, but Bingo is right and I am wrong? Interesting contradiction.

So Azure, how much "research" have you done into the events of 9/11? You even bother to read the "official" report, or are you just parroting what has become the acceptable story, promoted by a ###### and his facist buddies in the White House and on Faux News?

Like Bingo said; Lanny is putting the simple-minded people into a position where we have to defend the simple viewpoint generally accepted by everyone, while for some reason the CT viewpoint runs as mainstream opinion, and DOESN'T need to be defended.

Where the hell did I say that? I am CHALLENGING the simple viewpoint that is the accepted story and trying to get people to look into it themselves. And who is defending their position here, and who is not, saying that they don't have to defend their point because it is tha accepted story. According to Bingo, he doesn't want to get into a debate where we support our claims because "it will just go in circles". Typical Faux News mentality. "We Report, We Decide For You"! Don't bother presenting the information and making an argument, as that will encourage people to think and enter into discourse. Discourse is evil!!! Discourse leads to the broadening of perspective and an alteration of the accepted perception of matters. It's much better to be good little mindless dittoheads that do exactly what the government, and their propaganda organs, tell us to do. If there is one thing I want people to take away from any discussion I am in, its to go away and actually crack a book or do the research on the internet. Prove me wrong by presenting a case that refutes my position with cold hard facts. Do that, and we have achieved the end goal IMO. But continue with these mindless drive-bys (White Doors, that really was pathetic when you know you're ignored) and inference that the "official" story is the end game and any other explanation is on the fringe is just weak. If you want to call someone out for what they believe, you better counter their argument and beat them into submission with facts.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You know what's really hilarious in all of this? Bingo is the one who has been saying that HE refuses to look at alternative explanations/theories. HE's the one who is refusing to do the research. HE is the one swallowing a story without looking into the matter and educating himself on it, and making a decision based on the information available. HE is just like so many around here that take the "official" story as gospel, even when the official story turns out to be bull****. But out of this I am the one that is the wingnut because I have done the research, have done the critical analysis, and have formulated an argument based on what information I have found? Wait a second, didn't you just say to do the research? Isn't that what I have done and what people like Bingo have not, but Bingo is right and I am wrong? Interesting contradiction.

I guess it probably makes you think you do better in arguments when you put words in other people's mouths and then strike down the fabricated comments, but do you honestly believe anyone else sees it that way?

Problems from above.

1. I never said I refuse to look at alternate sources and theories. I've read a bunch of this stuff. I'm just saying there's fringes on both sides (I've read a lot of both, but clearly not all) and getting into a link war from the fringe is a waste of time.
2. I never take anything as gospel, and I couldn't even tell you where to find an official story these days in the media, etc.
3. I've never called you wrong, and went out of my way to say I'm not calling you a wingnut.

Like I said yesterday there is plenty of very professional sourced work on the net that support many things, but I don't tend to buy either side hook line and sinker because I honestly believe if there was that much to any of it ... it would creep to the center of the media world and get reported.

So that eliminates stuff I don't believe (US behind 911, missile hit the Pentagon, etc), and stuff I'd love to believe (WMD stocks moved into Syria, etc).

The massive opportunity for a relatively mainstream journalist to blow the top off these things is too damn ripe not to have every one of them investigate this stuff. They read the same sites that you and I might, but then go beyond it and find that the sources aren't as strong as supported or that contradictions make them unravel.

That's all I said.

so you go ahead and choose ... talk to Bingo, or you can have a little feud with Bizzarro Bingo in your little world.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

well mainstream gets updated each and every day with new information and people evolve. Women were at one time not allowed to vote (still don't in many parts of the world), there was segregation. The world was once considered flat. Saying people are proven wrong over time is hardly a great way to defend fringe beliefs in conspiracy theories.

Yes Bingo, and if this was the 1400's you would be the one arguing that the world was flat and I would be saying the world was round. I would be pointing to things that support the theory, and you would be saying that the church tells us the world is flat and that is that.

However if you must you can also likely point back to 100 or so conspiracies that have been proven to be nothing of the sort, but I don't suspect you'd take that as proof as every current conspiracy theory is wrnog either.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

My point stands though ... modern conspiracy theories always put the simple and logical answer on the stand and make them proof that two probable unrelated events are indeed unrelated. Pretty backwards if you ask me.

There's the problem Bingo, you THINK the simple and logical answer (the one in your own mind anyways) is the simple and logical answer. You have swallowed the information given to you in a series of talking points and think that is reality. There is no discussion with you because you believe what ever comes across the wire as being factual.

Like I said yesterday ... I took the bus to work today and the WTI oil price has fallen almost a buck. Can you prove those two events have no link?

Stupid example. A more relevant example would be if you took out a huge insurance policy on your house and car. You car gets boosted and ends up being driven into the side of your house, rupturing a gas line and burning both to nothing cinders. Your story is that you were out to dinner with your wife and kids (you actually were and there were witnesses) and that it was obviously a freak accident of some sort. That's the accepted story, because one of the investigators from the police department is a long time reader of CalgaryPuck and he thinks you're a righteous dude (which you are btw). The insurance company cuts you a cheque and you go on your merry way, with a fat payout.

Now, a guy in the fire department is skeptical. He keeps looking into this and finds that you had just taken out this big insurance policy. He also finds out that you've been thinking of moving and have had the house on and off the market for a while, unable to find a buyer. He also discovers that you had just been offered a sweetheart deal on some property elsewhere, but with a small window of opportunity. He also discovers that a friend of yours has some dealings with some pretty shady characters that have made similar jobs like this happen. That's a lot of circumstantial evidence that could really sink you if presented in court. All he needs is the link between you and the shady dudes, and he's got you by the nuts. To you, he's got a conspiracy theory. To him, and other investigators, he's got a pretty good case forming that could implicate you pretty well with the right piece of evidence. That's what we are talking about here. What looks to be a series of coincidences are the things that provide motive. They provide the evidence to convict. All you have to do is continue digging. If it were so cut and dried there would not be all of these questions hanging out there. There would be no incentive to continue an investigation.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I guess it probably makes you think you do better in arguments when you put words in other people's mouths and then strike down the fabricated comments, but do you honestly believe anyone else sees it that way?

Problems from above.

1. I never said I refuse to look at alternate sources and theories. I've read a bunch of this stuff. I'm just saying there's fringes on both sides (I've read a lot of both, but clearly not all) and getting into a link war from the fringe is a waste of time.
2. I never take anything as gospel, and I couldn't even tell you where to find an official story these days in the media, etc.
3. I've never called you wrong, and went out of my way to say I'm not calling you a wingnut.

Like I said yesterday there is plenty of very professional sourced work on the net that support many things, but I don't tend to buy either side hook line and sinker because I honestly believe if there was that much to any of it ... it would creep to the center of the media world and get reported.

So that eliminates stuff I don't believe (US behind 911, missile hit the Pentagon, etc), and stuff I'd love to believe (WMD stocks moved into Syria, etc).

The massive opportunity for a relatively mainstream journalist to blow the top off these things is too damn ripe not to have every one of them investigate this stuff. They read the same sites that you and I might, but then go beyond it and find that the sources aren't as strong as supported or that contradictions make them unravel.

That's all I said.

so you go ahead and choose ... talk to Bingo, or you can have a little feud with Bizzarro Bingo in your little world.

Sorry Bingo, I used you as an example because of the stance you took on the debate side of things. I was not trying to put any words in your mouth, I was trying to answer those words that Azure had shoved in my mouth.

Oh, and just so you know, it seems you like to believe in your own little conspiracy theories (WMD stocks moved into Syria, Saddam links to al Qaeda, etc.). Everyone has some theory that they like to place stock in that is out there. I guess it all depends on who you think is the "evil doer".

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Oh, and just so you know, it seems you like to believe in your own little conspiracy theories (WMD stocks moved into Syria, Saddam links to al Qaeda, etc.). Everyone has some theory that they like to place stock in that is out there. I guess it all depends on who you think is the "evil doer".

Far from it.

Until I see some proof to prove such a thing it's just a theory, and certainly not some shadow belief of mine.

It's possible, but I don't tend to call theories facts unless they are indeed that.

al Qaeda and Hussein had a mutual hatred of the US ... more than enough reason to get into bed together especially with Afghanistan becoming inhospitable for terrorists

Syria and Iraq have a porous border so some transfers are certainly possible, but like the 911 stuff ... what a story for some journalist so I think it less and less likely as time marches on.

I don't think there was anything shady behind 911 from a US standpoint, though I do think it possible that they were hearing rumblings about a plane induced plot and likely didn't do enough to protect against such an event occuring.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

al Qaeda and Hussein had a mutual hatred of the US ... more than enough reason to get into bed together especially with Afghanistan becoming inhospitable for terrorists

That is such a bunch of disinformation. Hussein was a secularist. bin Laden and al Qaeda saw Hussein as one the leaders that needed to be removed for Islam to achieve the greatness he invisioned. Hussein imprisoned anyone that he viewed as a threat to his power and control. After the '93 WTC bombing one of the conspirators fled to Iraq, where Hussein immediately tracked him down, imprisoned him, and offered him up to the United States, multiple times. Hussein was no friend to al Qaeda. In fact, Zarqawi was only in Iraq because he was in a region protected by the no-fly zone and unreachable by Hussein and his goons. Hussein would have executed any terrorist found in Iraq. Don't confuse providing monitary support for those who attack Israel to supporting terrorists in his own country.

Syria and Iraq have a porous border so some transfers are certainly possible, but like the 911 stuff ... what a story for some journalist so I think it less and less likely as time marches on.

No, not at all possible. The UN was inspecting Iraq for almost a decade. The United States was enforcing the no fly zone and continually monitoring Iraq for movement of forces and equipment. The likelihood of WMD's sneaking out of Iraq are pretty minimal. The potential for them getting to Syria, pretty close to nil. Any movement would have been noticed. The US military would have to be as incompetant on a daily basis as you lead us to believe they were on 9/11. Based on the testimony of the military supporters here we are certain that this is not the case. The best and the brightest work in our military, and only the civilian meddling prevent them from doing their jobs efficiently, so I don't see this as being possible. As well, if this were indeed the case, the military leadership AND the regional governments would all be in an uproar over the potential threat from these weapons. There is no threat and has been no threat since 1991.

I don't think there was anything shady behind 911 from a US standpoint, though I do think it possible that they were hearing rumblings about a plane induced plot and likely didn't do enough to protect against such an event occuring.

There were hearing "rumblings"? You mean the Phillippines government turning over the whole plot in 1998, to the CIA, FBI and State Department, was a rumbling? The fact that all of the "suspected" terrorists were under surveillance for years prior to the event is rumbling? You mean the fact that Gary Hart mentioned an impending attack in an inteview with the Montreal Gazette on 9/04 was rumbling? There were not rumblings, there was a concise report delivered to the Oval Office that was ignored. Read 1000 Years for Revenge to get the background leading up to 9/11. The United States government knew what was happening. There is no doubt about that.

[Bingo]

Item One - Hussein and al Quaeda

I do trades with guys I consider to be real SOBs every single day. We have a mutual need to do some business for the good of each of our companies. I don't feel the need to check their voting record, religion and stance on gay marriage or abortion to get something done.

To just assume that two different parties with a shared distaste for a third party could or would never work together is a really big assumption in my mind.

Item Two - Syrian border

Once again you just state as a fact that it couldn't happen. Says you I guess. Look at the guys that got out across that border during the 2003 war for an example of it happening every day. I think the US bombardment of Iraq three years ago was likely a little more intense than a handful of UN inspectors. It could have happened. It may not have. But drop the hard statements that no one can prove or disprove.

Item Three - Rumblings

Not sure why you feel you need to put that down my throat as I said the same thing. But can I assume that if they put out an alert back in December of 2000 that you'd call the alert bogus and fear mongering?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Seems dumb to quote his stuff and insult him when you're on his ignore list. Though, I guess that makes it a lot easier to snipe without repercussion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid

dumb? cowardly maybe - but that would only be if I could somehow DISALLOW him from seeign my posts, when in reality that is his choice and one that I am proud of. I'm just pointing out delusional behaviour in a humorous manner (at least I thought so)
Your attempt wasn't so funny by the way.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

dumb? cowardly maybe - but that would only be if I could somehow DISALLOW him from seeign my posts, when in reality that is his choice and one that I am proud of. I'm just pointing out delusional behaviour in a humorous manner (at least I thought so)
Your attempt wasn't so funny by the way.

Oops, sorry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cowardly

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I for one would like to see if Looger has an opinion on this matter.

don't worry, you'll get your wish.

take shots at someone not in a thread multiple times, and you resurrect them.

now it's 9/11 truth, ALL THE TIME.

congrats.