Items of interest: 9/11

Oozlefinch said:

OK, now this is hogwash. And ironically, both of the items you are claiming actually supports the Government's case.

Agent Colleen Rowley was out of the field office in Minnesota, and was involved in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. And she wanted to have his computers searched for information linking him to terrorists, but this was blocked by Judges and she felt the FBI did not go far enough in trying to get permission to have his computers searched. So one of your "whistleblowers" actually backs the Government's case. Next.

Sibel Edmonds, she was not actually an FBI agent, nor was she an employee of the FBI. She was just a translator that was contracted after the attacks. Her evidence also follows the Government's claims, but that the FBI ignored threats from the Bin Laden organization that it was planning an imminent attack.

Funny thing here, both of your "claimed whistleblowers" to being involved in the attack actually claim the exact opposite of what you say, in that both tried to warn the Government that Osama Bin Laden was going to do an attack and were ignored. Thank you so very much for providing evidence that is the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying Oozle, but you're ignoring the proverbial big picture.

The essence of Rowley's statements really don't have anything at all to do with the planning or execution of the events of the day. No problem there.

But they provide good insight into the coverup at the higher levels of FBI. For some of the more callous amongst us, the coverup is worse than the crime itself, and the FBI was right smack in the middle of that coverup, as Rowley showed. Ditto Edmonds.

Leaning on witnesses to tell the official story, hiding evidence, etc etc. You know the drill, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Henry David said:

I understand what you're saying Oozle, but you're ignoring the proverbial big picture.

The essence of Rowley's statements really don't have anything at all to do with the planning or execution of the events of the day. No problem there.

But they provide good insight into the coverup at the higher levels of FBI. For some of the more callous amongst us, the coverup is worse than the crime itself, and the FBI was right smack in the middle of that coverup, as Rowley showed. Ditto Edmonds.

Leaning on witnesses to tell the official story, hiding evidence, etc etc. You know the drill, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Click to expand...

No, what it shows is that you just cling onto anything that you might think even remotely supports your case, even when they say the exact opposite.

Because if you accept the Rowley and Edmonds testimony as truth, then that means that all 4 planes actually existed, and that they were indeed flown by hijackers from the Middle East. And that the buildings collapsed entirely because of these aircraft.

Because their testimony has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of a plot by the government itself to do these attacks. In fact, they did not even allude that the US knew about the attacks and covered it up, they simply state that they tried to warn others of the danger and were ignored.

In fact, Edmonds was not even brought in until after the attacks happened! Specifically she claims she translated one interview that was conducted before the attacks (she was not present, she was translating from attacks months later), and this is what she claims she reported:

Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this.

Click to expand...

So the funny thing is, you are taking somebody who backs 100% the "Government's Case" as you call it, and insists that they knew about it but chose to allow the attack to happen as planned so to have a cassias belli to attack Muslims. Which is in complete and utter opposition to your own claim.

And apparently you not only fail to see the illogic in you doing this, you try to actually force it in to fit your own beliefs anyways.

CT nut: The sky is red!
Sane person: No, the sky is blue.
CT: The sky is red I tell you!
SP: No, the sky is blue.
CT: See, here is a document that says that the sky is green, which therefore proves that the sky is red!
SP: (facepalm)

And to those of us that pay attention to such things, the name Bin Laden was not exactly unknown among those of us that watched such groups. I even remember watching his interview on US TV back in 1997 and 1998.



And he was already linked to attacks dating back to 1992. So somebody prior to 9-11 mentioning his name to future attacks is not exactly unexpected. And while she claims that in the interview the person listed at least 5 cities, in reality only 2 were attacked. And nothing with hijacking aircraft and crashing them into buildings, just that aircraft would be used.

Now you also have to consider, how reliable is Ms. Edmonds? And if you ask me, not very.

You see, she was contracted by the FBI on 20 September 2001, over a week after the attacks. And she started to re-translate past interviews in December 2001. That is when she found one that she though was either not translated well, or had a threat which she felt was ignored. And this is where her own story gets very-very strange.

She asked if any of the agents had done follow-ups for her to translate, and was told that there were no follow-ups done. However, information she never revealed was when this interview was to have taken place.

Now it gets even more strange, because on her own website, she claims to have released edited classified documents, heavily redacted:

Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post | Home of the Irate Minority

Which once again is missing such important things such as dates, that it is almost worthless. Was this interview in 1995? 1998? 2001? We don't know. Although one of the interviews is listed as April 2001, and lists 5 cities (New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco and DC). As we know, the terrorists only intended to attack 2 of the 5, so we are already at 60% unreliable even looking after the fact.

And also even the person being interviewed suspected not suicide hijackers but bombs, as in the Lockerbie attack.

‘No specific dates; not any that they were aware of. However, they said the general timeframe was characterized as ‘very soon.’ They think within the next two or three months.’ He then added: ‘As far as how they are going to use the planes to attack; your guess is as good as mine. My bet, it will be bombs; planting bombs inside these planes, maybe the cargo, then have them blown up over the populated cities.’

Click to expand...

SO how accurate was this "information" really? Well, almost not accurate at all, and in reading through it even if it is true it seems to be made up entirely of speculation based upon earlier attacks (WTC 1993, Lockerbie, and Millennium Attack combined with a bit of Khobar Towers). I think it is entirely speculation, and the reality is so far from what really happened it is dismissible. Otherwise you might as well drag in the Tom Clancy book Debt of Honor as evidence as well.

Oozlefinch said:

No, what it shows is that you just cling onto anything that you might think even remotely supports your case, even when they say the exact opposite.

Because if you accept the Rowley and Edmonds testimony as truth, then that means that all 4 planes actually existed, and that they were indeed flown by hijackers from the Middle East. And that the buildings collapsed entirely because of these aircraft.

Because their testimony has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of a plot by the government itself to do these attacks. In fact, they did not even allude that the US knew about the attacks and covered it up, they simply state that they tried to warn others of the danger and were ignored.

In fact, Edmonds was not even brought in until after the attacks happened! Specifically she claims she translated one interview that was conducted before the attacks (she was not present, she was translating from attacks months later), and this is what she claims she reported:



So the funny thing is, you are taking somebody who backs 100% the "Government's Case" as you call it, and insists that they knew about it but chose to allow the attack to happen as planned so to have a cassias belli to attack Muslims. Which is in complete and utter opposition to your own claim.

And apparently you not only fail to see the illogic in you doing this, you try to actually force it in to fit your own beliefs anyways.

CT nut: The sky is red!
Sane person: No, the sky is blue.
CT: The sky is red I tell you!
SP: No, the sky is blue.
CT: See, here is a document that says that the sky is green, which therefore proves that the sky is red!
SP: (facepalm)

Click to expand...

So much nonsense Oozle.

Scott said:

Objective truth-seekers don't avoid addressing issues that go against the conclusions they've already come to. They look at the issues and, if they see they're wrong, they modify their opinions. They don't have foregone conclusions that they stick to hell-or-high-water.

Your behavior is not that of a truth-seeker. It's that of a cornered sophist.

If you're a truth-seeker, address the issue I raised.

Click to expand...

Objective truth seekers don't continue to present the same tired and thoroughly debunked pieces of garbage in hopes of finding an audience that is not yet familiar with the tactic. You can recycle and repackage the same piece of crap as many times as you want to but it's still the same piece of crap once you unwrap it. People have just played this game for too long and they're tired of it.

Unless you've got something new and original like pictures of people planting bombs or a work order for about a million pounds of thermite, give it a rest. Recycled garbage isn't going to cut it.

Henry David said:

So much nonsense Oozle.

Click to expand...

And how is it nonsense? I gave you her exact quote, from her own website. And it talks about OBL attacking with airplanes. Not the US Government attacking with ghosts. So please tell me where she made claims that agree with your own.

Oozlefinch said:

And how is it nonsense? I gave you her exact quote, from her own website. And it talks about OBL attacking with airplanes. Not the US Government attacking with ghosts. So please tell me where she made claims that agree with your own.

Click to expand...

Repeating what I said in post #76, it is the "Big Picture", it is the interpretation of evidence, it is the perspective. I've already said that she was not involved in the planning or execution of the events of the day--neither of the women were.

It's what they revealed AFTER THE FACT that has value. Primarily, the involvement of FBI and other types at the higher levels of the organization, to cover up the truth, to conceal certain evidence, and to mislead the investigation and the public.

(from post #80)

Objective truth seekers don't continue to present the same tired and thoroughly debunked pieces of garbage in hopes of finding an audience that is not yet familiar with the tactic. You can recycle and repackage the same piece of crap as many times as you want to but it's still the same piece of crap once you unwrap it. People have just played this game for too long and they're tired of it.

Unless you've got something new and original like pictures of people planting bombs or a work order for about a million pounds of thermite, give it a rest. Recycled garbage isn't going to cut it.

Click to expand...

I've never seen it debunked. I've only seen people try to obfuscate it and they claim it had been debunked. You're trying to make people who haven't done any research think it has been debunked when it hasn't.

It's all on this page if anyone wants to look at it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/163852-items-interest-9-11-a-4.html

Scott said:

stuff

Click to expand...

Hey Scott, since you hijacked my thread, I'm still waiting for your summation on how 9/11 was MIHOP. Remember, I want it written out, in your own writing.

Jack Fabulous said:

Objective truth seekers don't continue to present the same tired and thoroughly debunked pieces of garbage in hopes of finding an audience that is not yet familiar with the tactic. You can recycle and repackage the same piece of crap as many times as you want to but it's still the same piece of crap once you unwrap it. People have just played this game for too long and they're tired of it.

Unless you've got something new and original like pictures of people planting bombs or a work order for about a million pounds of thermite, give it a rest. Recycled garbage isn't going to cut it.

Click to expand...

What do you mean, recycled garbage doesn't cut it?

Recycled garbage is the very foundation of the 911 Commission report and the entire MSM treatment of the events of the day. Heck, they even made a movie about 93 with nothing but recycled garbage and lies. Your entire view of this matter is founded upon recycled garbage.

Menard_K said:

I agree that speculation as to HOW it was done is futile,
but we can see clearly WHAT was done in that steel framed buildings
like WTC 1,2 & 7 do not simply "collapse" in the manner shown in the documentaries.
Fact is the MSM has and continues to commit FRAUD by promoting the idea that
WTC 1,2 & 7 simply "collapsed" as a result of chaotic damage sustained in a terrorist attack.
Ya, TERRORIST ATTACK, but are we quite certain of WHO the TERRORISTS are?

Is it unreasonable to hope that this case can be pried wide open by having the MSM
charged with FRAUD in the reporting of events. izat 2 much 2 ask?

Once in the courts, the case can get authorization to do DISCOVERY & dig for more info.

you see, 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster since the invention of photography!

Lets Roll .......

Click to expand...

The courts have already decided that news outlets are under no legal obligation to report the truth. So, I don't think your fraud angle can work.

As time wears on, the quality of the evidence degrades. But the quality of evidence isn't that important in the court of public opinion, where the decision is shifting away from the government conspiracy theory, as time wears on. The average man-on-the-street doesn't participate in forums like this--but he may visit; and when he does it is important for him to see vigorous DISPUTE, as opposed to heated agreement. It is important for him to see an open issue, where he can feel free to formulate his own position. I don't trust him to design a skyscaper, but I do trust him to be sceptical of authority; and I do trust him to distinguish the hollow ring of the lie from the resonant tone of the truth...eventually...

MK
Ever occur to you there are other sources besides the msm?

What do you use to come to your conclusion?

_Markum_ said:

The courts have already decided that news outlets are under no legal obligation to report the truth. So, I don't think your fraud angle can work.

As time wears on, the quality of the evidence degrades. But the quality of evidence isn't that important in the court of public opinion, where the decision is shifting away from the government conspiracy theory, as time wears on. The average man-on-the-street doesn't participate in forums like this--but he may visit; and when he does it is important for him to see vigorous DISPUTE, as opposed to heated agreement. It is important for him to see an open issue, where he can feel free to formulate his own position. I don't trust him to design a skyscaper, but I do trust him to be sceptical of authority; and I do trust him to distinguish the hollow ring of the lie from the resonant tone of the truth...eventually...

Click to expand...

Right you are. More and more people are voicing skepticism about the events of 9/11.

I just had a few beers with an old friend last week, and he candidly admitted "by golly, it seems you were right about 911". For years he had believed the official story, but now understands how wrong he was. Many men are unable to admit they were wrong.

You know what brought him around? The shootings at Newtown CT. He is a big gun fanatic, and he has major problems with all the details of that event.

Eventually realizing he had been lied to, he now understands the lying is way more widespread, and way more serious, than he could have ever imagined.

mike2810 said:

MK
Ever occur to you there are other sources besides the msm?

What do you use to come to your conclusion?

Click to expand...

do tell, exactly what sources did you use
to reach the conclusion that 9/11/2001 was the product of 19 radical Arabs?

Menard_K said:

My standard food for thought question:

WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?
& on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a JOB (?) whats up with that ?!?!?!?!?!?!

or?

Click to expand...

indeed, what is up with that?

Henry David said:

Right you are. More and more people are voicing skepticism about the events of 9/11.

I just had a few beers with an old friend last week, and he candidly admitted "by golly, it seems you were right about 911". For years he had believed the official story, but now understands how wrong he was. Many men are unable to admit they were wrong.

You know what brought him around? The shootings at Newtown CT. He is a big gun fanatic, and he has major problems with all the details of that event.

Eventually realizing he had been lied to, he now understands the lying is way more widespread, and way more serious, than he could have ever imagined.

Click to expand...

and I have had discussions with others in bars and they can't believe the bs about controlled demolition.

One item that holds true HD, once you fall for one CT, its easy to accept others. Now isn't it?

Menard_K said:

indeed, what is up with that?

Click to expand...

My standard food for thought question:

WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?
& on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a JOB (?) whats up with that ?!?!?!?!?!?!

How many taxpayers / Voters simply dismiss this question
rather than giving it some serious thought?
Your tax dollars at work, a Defense Dept. that FAILED to defend
& nobody was held accountable .... and we have been subjected
to lame excuses from Military Officers & civilian authorities!

A! AMERICA, are we MAD AS HELL ....... yet?

Menard_K said:

My standard food for thought question:

WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?
& on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a JOB (?) whats up with that ?!?!?!?!?!?!

How many taxpayers / Voters simply dismiss this question
rather than giving it some serious thought?
Your tax dollars at work, a Defense Dept. that FAILED to defend
& nobody was held accountable .... and we have been subjected
to lame excuses from Military Officers & civilian authorities!

A! AMERICA, are we MAD AS HELL ....... yet?

Click to expand...

you can't think of any reasons? Try understanding what happened that day.

mike2810 said:

you can't think of any reasons? Try understanding what happened that day.

Click to expand...

We were told over and over that it was a TERRORIST attack
however are we quite certain that we know the identity of said TERRORISTS?

that is the real perpetrators of 9/11/2001 .......

Who done it?

Menard_K said:

We were told over and over that it was a TERRORIST attack
however are we quite certain that we know the identity of said TERRORISTS?

that is the real perpetrators of 9/11/2001 .......

Who done it?

Click to expand...

You don't accept what happened and you want to deny who did it or demand identification of the perps of something you deny happened?

Do you see how irrational your thinking is? I guess not.

Scott said:

This is a disinfo article written by professional sophists who knew that 9/11 was an inside job.
Q&A: A New Look at the 9/11 Commission - TIME

Anyone who takes the time to do some research can see that 9/11 was planned and carried out by the US government.
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

Click to expand...

The US Government planned and carried out the launch of Obamacare too - see any disconnect?

rjay said:

The US Government planned and carried out the launch of Obamacare too - see any disconnect?

Click to expand...

I see a connection. War was brought under fraud for the benefit of war profiteers, just as Ike warned about in 1961, and Obamacare was brought under fraud and sophistry by both the legislative and the judicial branches (and of course the executive branch too), for the benefit of the health insurance industry.

Henry David said:

I see a connection. War was brought under fraud for the benefit of war profiteers, just as Ike warned about in 1961, and Obamacare was brought under fraud and sophistry by both the legislative and the judicial branches (and of course the executive branch too), for the benefit of the health insurance industry.

Click to expand...

Have you not seen any stories on how well the Obamacare launch is going? Yet the U.S. Government was able to plan and execute 9/11 with unerring precision. That my friend is the disconnect. The only time the government does something well is when it is a conspiracy.

rjay said:

Have you not seen any stories on how well the Obamacare launch is going? Yet the U.S. Government was able to plan and execute 9/11 with unerring precision. That my friend is the disconnect. The only time the government does something well is when it is a conspiracy.

Click to expand...

There were various sarcastic remarks aimed at the people who question
the 19 suicidal hijackers fiasco, like " ya, George Bush did it "
however the TRUTH is just a bit deeper than that. I can only speculate
as to exactly WHO, but the WHY is obvious, all one needs to ask is "who benefits" from
the staging of yet another PEARL HARBOR .... and the Motive, Means & opportunity
also is with the Military Industrial Complex .... think about it!

Menard_K said:

There were various sarcastic remarks aimed at the people who question
the 19 suicidal hijackers fiasco, like " ya, George Bush did it "
however the TRUTH is just a bit deeper than that. I can only speculate
as to exactly WHO, but the WHY is obvious, all one needs to ask is "who benefits" from
the staging of yet another PEARL HARBOR .... and the Motive, Means & opportunity
also is with the Military Industrial Complex .... think about it!

Click to expand...

Radical Islam has done too bad with 9/11. They were hardly on the radar and not they have the USA chasin them all over the world as if they are a real threat to our french fries.