Quote :

"The official account is that 9/11 was a covert operation...carried out by Al Qaeda, established as a highly compartmentalized organization. Given how little information the Pentagon and CIA have given us, we are free to speculate it's as likely as anything else that many of the hijackers may not have known of the full plot until that morning, and many of them may not have know each other."

The hijackers who provided the muscle on the doomed flights had no idea what the targets were. I also recall hearing that the individual al Qaeda flight crews had no idea what the other targets were. However, had they lived through it and seen the 9/11 attack come to fruition, they would have understood how their compartmentalized involvement was directly involved. Any of your low level operatives could have come to the same conclusion in hindsight.

Quote :

"Faith and hope are emotional phenomenon more related to the realm of belief, not rational deduction."

OK, Obi Wan. If you reread that sentence you could rationally deduce that I used the word "hope" sarcastically.

9/13/2006 9:40:29 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: The hijackers who provided the muscle on the doomed flights had no idea what the targets were. I also recall hearing that the individual al Qaeda flight crews had no idea what the other targets were."

Individuals in Al Qaeda, effectively representing the intelligence service of anti-Western Wahhabists, received training and handling so complex, for so long, and were able to carry this attack out, without the actual men involved in the action knowing what they were doing.

What convinces you that at no point in the chain between them and Bin Laden are there no intelligence hands foreign or domestic?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: However, had they lived through it and seen the 9/11 attack come to fruition, they would have understood how their compartmentalized involvement was directly involved. Any of your low level operatives could have come to the same conclusion in hindsight."

Ah. Induction. Because it hasn't happened yet, your conclusion is acceptable. Talk about Obi Wan.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: If you reread that sentence you could rationally deduce that I used the word "hope" sarcastically."

Why would I think it was sarcastic? You've been defending the idea that the involvement of intelligence services are impossible. I've provided the groundwork for the idea that it is possible.

If even something as simple and very low-level as a same-day drop were instigated by a field agent of any intelligence service of our own, and disguised the purpose of the mission to the agent, why would he have any reason to understand the significance?

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2006 9:45:51 PM

Quote :

"Individuals in Al Qaeda, effectively representing the intelligence service of anti-Western Wahhabists, received training and handling so complex, for so long, and were able to carry this attack out, without the actual men involved in the action knowing what they were doing."

They knew exactly what they were doing, they just didn't know the details. As I said, had they lived through the event somehow they would have understood exactly what they had been a part of.

Quote :

"What convinces you that at no point in the chain between them and Bin Laden are there no intelligence hands foreign or domestic?"

Convinces me? There is absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise. Although, I will entertain other notions should new informations come to light.

Quote :

"Why would I think it was sarcastic? You've been defending the idea that the involvement of intelligence services are impossible. I've provided the groundwork for the idea that it is possible."

When did I say that it was impossible? Its simply an unfounded conclusion due to the general lack of evidence supporting such a theory.

Quote :

"If even something as simple and very low-level as a same-day drop were instigated by a field agent of any intelligence service of our own, and disguised the purpose of the mission to the agent, why would he have any reason to understand the significance?"

You're creating a false dichotomy within the intelligence community. You are painting a picture of upper level intelligence personnel who plan and carry out huge events, and on the other hand a bunch of low level operatives who do nothing but run around and drop of brown bags. There are going to be many different levels of knowledge and involvement, not just overlords and interns. Obviously one crew is going to get stuck with planting explosives in the WTC, one crew is going to figure out how to take down the towers effectively, one crew is going to frame arabs, one crew is going have to figure out how to crash a plane by remote, one crew is actually going to have to carry it out, one crew is going to have to fire a missile at the pentagon, one crew is going to shoot down the plane over PA, one crew is going to have to figure how to order a stand down without raising suspicions. Its going to take a lot more than making a same-day drop. While the guy on the bottom rung who always gets stuck with dropping off brown bags in Dallas might not figure it out, there are many others who will.

9/13/2006 10:08:48 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: They knew exactly what they were doing, they just didn't know the details. As I said, had they lived through the event somehow they would have understood exactly what they had been a part of."

Ah. Yes, I agree.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Convinces me? There is absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise. Although, I will entertain other notions should new informations come to light."

Of course there isn't. There's also a lot of evidence that's classified. The 9/11 Commission Report is incomplete for this reason. I agree fully with the idea of not speculating beyond the data.

What about the data, aside from salisburyboy's grainy video, establishes that Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: When did I say that it was impossible? Its simply an unfounded conclusion due to the general lack of evidence supporting such a theory."

I'll admit to overstepping on that one. You didn't say it was impossible. It's good to be sure, though.

---

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: You're creating a false dichotomy within the intelligence community."

I fully disagree with this premise, and the rest of your argument is invalid because of it.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: You are painting a picture of upper level intelligence personnel who plan and carry out huge events, and on the other hand a bunch of low level operatives who do nothing but run around and drop of brown bags."

Where exactly in my example did I do so?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: There are going to be many different levels of knowledge and involvement, not just overlords and interns."

I've limited my argument to a single incident of involvement for a reason. There's nothing vast about this. And within the chain of command of intelligence personnel there are most certainly plenty of examples of overlords and interns. What exactly do you think the word "handling" means in the intelligence community?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Obviously one crew is going to get stuck with planting explosives in the WTC, one crew is going to figure out how to take down the towers effectively, one crew is going to frame arabs, one crew is going have to figure out how to crash a plane by remote, one crew is actually going to have to carry it out, one crew is going to have to fire a missile at the pentagon, one crew is going to shoot down the plane over PA, one crew is going to have to figure how to order a stand down without raising suspicions. Its going to take a lot more than making a same-day drop. While the guy on the bottom rung who always gets stuck with dropping off brown bags in Dallas might not figure it out, there are many others who will."

How much of this have I implied had to be carried out by the US intelligence community? And more importantly, why are you presuming all of this is going to have to have been carried out by the perpetrators themselves?

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2006 10:23:29 PM

Quote :

"What about the data, aside from salisburyboy's grainy video, establishes that Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks?"

His numerous other videos mentioning his involvement, the fact that no tapes have emerged of bin Laden denying involvement, his 1998 fatwah urging muslims to kill americans, the video last week that shows him meeting with several of the hijackers, and the fact that he has also taken credit for numerous other attacks on US interests abroad, among other things.

Quote :

"I fully disagree with this premise, and the rest of your argument is invalid because of it."

While you may think otherwise, you are painting a picture of the intelligence community that includes an upper level and a lower level while completely ignoring the many levels in between.

Quote :

"I've limited my argument to a single incident of involvement for a reason. There's nothing vast about this."

Whats the single incident?

Quote :

"How much of this have I implied had to be carried out by the US intelligence community?"

I was just continuing with salisburyboys ideas, I didn't mean to misrepresent any of yours.

9/13/2006 10:37:34 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: His numerous other videos mentioning his involvement"

How many and are they of MUCH better quality than the first?

Also, could you explain for clarity what your own rational speculation about why Bin Laden didn't mention he did it until December 13th, 2001? I'm just curious about that one. I don't have any idea either.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: the fact that no tapes have emerged of bin Laden denying involvement"

But isn't that induction? I'd like to avoid that as much as I can if I'm to accept an official version of a story.

That begs the question, too. How many tapes do we have of Bin Laden between 9/11/2001 and 9/13/2006? How much other evidence that we've authenticated and that has stood up to scrutiny actually links him to the attacks?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: his 1998 fatwah urging muslims to kill americans"

This establishes a motive. As any detective has to admit, you need more than a motive to convict a suspect.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: the video last week that shows him meeting with several of the hijackers,"

Could you source that? I'd really like to see it, but never got a chance to.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: and the fact that he has also taken credit for numerous other attacks on US interests abroad,."

What evidence links him to a similar leadership role in those?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: While you may think otherwise, you are painting a picture of the intelligence community that includes an upper level and a lower level while completely ignoring the many levels in between."

Got any evidence to back up your claim?

Because otherwise, I view this, "I was just continuing with salisburyboys ideas, I didn't mean to misrepresent any of yours," as a contradiction.

The Director of the CIA obviously has more authority than a low-level operative. Informants and drop people are usually not the same ones making strategic decisions about intelligence operations. Surely you're not disputing this notion. There are subordinates. I ask you again, what do you think the word "handling" means in the intelligence community?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Whats the single incident?"

My hypothetical, billion-to-one speculation that a single drop by intelligence officials could've been involved at some point in the planning or execution of the attacks. It's pure speculation. But since the intelligence services want to leave us free to do so (incomplete 9/11 Commission report), we can assign billion-to-one probability events into the realm of possibility.

9/13/2006 10:56:25 PM

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3926c5c0-4fe0-4746-8e12-02291079ca81&k=51267

Quote :

"Internet gives voice to 9/11 'truth seekers' Published: Monday, September 11, 2006 [...] "The Internet has changed the entire paradigm," says Austin, Texas, radio broadcaster Alex Jones, a leading proponent of the theory 9/11 was an inside job. "It is the greatest development since the Gutenberg press." Jones has 10 websites, the two most popular being http://www.infowars.com and http://www.prisonplanet.com, where he promotes various theories on what happened Sept. 11, 2001, and why. There are dozens of other sites, many linked to one another. Jones and the other website pundits aren't conspiracy nut jobs; they're ordinary Americans who believe they were lied to. And they're using the Internet to spread the word. They call themselves "Truthers," the fellowship making up the 9/11 Truth Movement or 9/11 Truth Skeptics. [...] University of Victoria professor Dr. Arthur Kroker says the roots of the conspiracy movement in the U.S. — "The word conspiracy is a pejorative term," he says — go back to the 1963 assassination of president John F. Kennedy in Dallas. Kroker teaches courses on technology and theory, and contemporary political thought. Kroker (web.uvic.ca/~akroker) says the horror of the moment, and the subsequent killing of assassin Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, marked the beginning of a split in American society and growing distrust in government. It slowly worsened through the Vietnam War era, the Watergate years through to today. What's accelerated it is the Internet, he says. "People can do their own research and talk to one another," he says. "Before, it was only in the hands of elites. Now people can get different sources of information and make judgments on their own. They can also do it globally and do it fast." "

9/14/2006 9:36:30 AM

OH JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST ON THE CROSS

MORE ALEX JONES BULLSHIT

9/14/2006 10:12:45 AM

VIDEO (CNN International): Venezuela's Chavez says U.S. Government planned 9/11 attacks
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/chavez_video_bush_planned_911.htm

9/14/2006 12:02:01 PM

Quote :

""The Internet has changed the entire paradigm," says Austin, Texas, radio broadcaster Alex Jones, a leading proponent of the theory 9/11 was an inside job. "It is the greatest development since the Gutenberg press." ... "People can do their own research and talk to one another," (Dr. Arthur Kroker) says. "Before, it was only in the hands of elites. Now people can get different sources of information and make judgments on their own. They can also do it globally and do it fast.""

The internet has helped to spread information and make it readily accessible, yes. And it also provides an easy means for information to be skewed, mis-informed, or outright wrong. Just because the internet can spread information around quicker doesn't mean it does it better.

And no, I'm not saying every source you've posted from the internet is wrong, so don't even start typing that.

As for "it was only in the hands of elites", I would hope that national newspapers, magazines, and public libraries succeeded in bringing information to the common man long before the internet came around. Certainly the internet was a big step, but to say it was only in the hands of elites is pushing it to me.

All that said, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with that article quote. The second guy, Kroker, seems to imply that the internet has accelerated a growing mistrust in the government. Now, you tend to quote stuff out of context, so I'm not sure if Kroker is supporting the conspiracy or simply talking about the spread of conspiracies. I'm going to assume it's the latter.

If that's the case then I could agree with him, but only in the sense that the internet is basically one massive version of the "telephone" game. Back in the Kennedy era, the conspiracy behind his murder might spread by people talking to each other, and the story gets bigger as it goes. Nowadays, the internet takes that, and multiplies it by a fuckton. So all you really have is the conspiracy spreading faster.

9/14/2006 1:53:00 PM

THROW THE JEW DOWN THE WELL!

9/14/2006 2:22:45 PM

Quote :

"How many and are they of MUCH better quality than the first?"

I can't give you a specific number, but the majority have been produced by al Qaeda's media wing and, as such, are of much better quality than a home movie of bin Laden discussing the attacks with a host.

Quote :

"How many tapes do we have of Bin Laden between 9/11/2001 and 9/13/2006? How much other evidence that we've authenticated and that has stood up to scrutiny actually links him to the attacks?"

If I were an innocent man accused of something on the scale of the 9/11 attacks, my biggest priority would be to clear my name and tell the world that I wasn't responsible.

As far as other evidence, if you go through the 9/11 commission report there is a mountain of evidence, including a tremendous paper trail.

Quote :

"Could you source that?"

It came out about a week ago. I found the link for it on msnbc but can't get it to work on this computer. If I can get it when I get home tonight I'll PM it to you.

Quote :

"What evidence links him to a similar leadership role in those?"

The testimony of captured al Qaeda members, among other things.

Quote :

"Got any evidence to back up your claim?"

Well, yeah. Go back and reread your posts. You're focusing on the lowest rung of the ladder and saying that since the bag boys wouldn't know what they are dropping off they would have no reason to suspect that they were involved in 9/11, thus there is no one that could leak any truth about government involvement.

Quote :

"Because otherwise, I view this, "I was just continuing with salisburyboys ideas, I didn't mean to misrepresent any of yours," as a contradiction."

How is that a contradiction?

Quote :

"I ask you again, what do you think the word "handling" means in the intelligence community?"

There is a lot more to the intelligence community than just handling. How is handling going to create the destruction of any kind of homegrown 9/11 plot?

Quote :

"My hypothetical, billion-to-one speculation that a single drop by intelligence officials could've been involved at some point in the planning or execution of the attacks."

OK, why would it matter if it did happen?

9/14/2006 2:26:37 PM

yo salisburyboy

i asked you some questions on the previous page

care to address?

biggest one is this:

Quote :

"As we're going through the evidence, I'd like to ask you to do a simple thing. I know you'll find it difficult and complicated, but it would be worth your while. Could you please write your complete hypothesis down and post it along with your own assessment of the probability that it's true (as a %)?"

---

methos, I think you hit it on the head everywhere but here:

Quote :

"methos: If that's the case then I could agree with him, but only in the sense that the internet is basically one massive version of the "telephone" game."

It's a little different than that. The telephone game didn't enable official sourcing, access to university studies, peer reviewed journals, or nearly the same level of information quality that the Internet does. The problem the 9/11 Conspiracy Movement suffers from seems to be more one of selective evidence and faulty reasoning without the capacity to answer very basic questions.

Who are the people that come up with these hypotheses and why aren't they working in Hollywood?

That's what I wonder most of the time.

What I wonder the rest of the time is what exactly is their hypothesis?

Usually, they do no more than say: The official account is bullshit. Substitute my bullshit account instead.

Quote :

"methos: Back in the Kennedy era, the conspiracy behind his murder might spread by people talking to each other, and the story gets bigger as it goes. Nowadays, the internet takes that, and multiplies it by a fuckton. So all you really have is the conspiracy spreading faster."

I agree that it's spreading faster. That much is clear by the continually released polls. I also like how you avoid the question of what particular conspiracy you believe about the Kennedy Assassination (the Warren Commission's, or any of the billion others).

---

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: I can't give you a specific number, but the majority have been produced by al Qaeda's media wing and, as such, are of much better quality than a home movie of bin Laden discussing the attacks with a host."

Can you give me a range? More than 5? Less than 50?

I just want to make sure that we've got more than one very low quality tape to go on when we're talking about publicly indicting an individual for orchestrating a catastrophic terrorist attack against our country. It's a synthesis of other evidence to be sure (like the rest of what you've provided), but a clear videotape of Osama Bin Laden directly claiming responsibility would be key in rebutting salisburyboy's claim on this matter. That'd almost be an open and shut case.

If all his evidence on the matter is one blurry tape that might actually represent Bin Laden claiming responsibility, when many other authenticated tapes of better quality exist showing substantially the same information, then this piece of his "evidence" definitely does not conclusively prove anything.

Out of simple curiosity, what is your hypothesis on the December 2001 tape's origin?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: If I were an innocent man accused of something on the scale of the 9/11 attacks, my biggest priority would be to clear my name and tell the world that I wasn't responsible."

Good point. But what if he knew about it, wasn't entirely innocent, but wasn't the orchestrator of the event?

Does anybody, including salisburyboy, have any well-founded claims about Osama Bin Laden's initial reactions to being informed of the attacks?

That would be especially helpful, I'd think.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: As far as other evidence, if you go through the 9/11 commission report there is a mountain of evidence, including a tremendous paper trail"

Yeah. I own a copy. And truth be known, I'm probably not going to read all of it. Not in my entire lifetime. I've tried several times since it was published, but the book, like the Warren Commission report, the U.S. tax code, and law and history textbooks, is among the most difficult reading material on the face of the planet. Granted, I could be a little more determined to plow through it, and I should be if I ever intend on making a formal hypothesis, but with portions of its material Classified, I don't know how much I should trust it in the first place.

So, to what extent do you give credence to the overall picture painted by the 9/11 Commission Report?

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: You're focusing on the lowest rung of the ladder and saying that since the bag boys wouldn't know what they are dropping off they would have no reason to suspect that they were involved in 9/11, thus there is no one that could leak any truth about government involvement."

Actually, that's not my point. In fact I've said on several occasions that we've established leaks to be acceptable. They wouldn't be credibly viewed or popularized anyway.

My point was limited exclusively to the idea that it's entirely possible to conceal from low-level operatives what they are involved with. Some intelligence agents could've been involved, in the same way they could be involved in drug smuggling for the mob.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: How is that a contradiction?"

Because I never asserted that the intelligence community exclusively consisted of an upper and lower level. I did spell out for you afterwards exactly how it resembled an upper and lower level organizational structure in terms of authority, which is where the need-to-know basis comes from. And "handling" I brought up because it is usually the manner by which agents with more information work with agents who have less, or at minimum, different information than they do.

I didn't ignore the many levels in between in my hypothetical example. I pulled them out to show how it'd be possible for a single agent to be deceived. If a single handler slipped him the bag for a foreign intelligence service, or Al Qaeda, you have a minimum of a 2-man involvement from within the intelligence community. The one who organized the transfer on a conscious level, and the one who made the drop on an unconscious level. The latter may never have seen or known who was to receive whatever contents he dropped. The former, say more senior, member who infiltrated the intelligence community for Al Qaeda, has carried out the one task he was asked to do for the organization.

How would he get caught? Would such an account end up in the 9/11 Commission Report?

Again, as I will continue to say, this isn't the outgrowth of any hypothesis except that such speculation isn't illogical so much as it's highly, HIGHLY unlikely given the lack of information to the contrary. My aim was to establish the idea of possibility of a non-traditional 9/11 conspiracy.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: How is handling going to create the destruction of any kind of homegrown 9/11 plot?"

Ask the spooks. They're the ones doing the handling all the time. We don't get to find out about such matters until they're properly declassified.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: OK, why would it matter if it did happen?"

Obviously because it'd establish a non-traditional 9/11 conspiracy theory to be possible and plausible (from a structural perspective), but lacking in the most important category still: probability. That's where it looks like all bad conspiracy theories break down. They need to be possible first of all, plausible secondly, and probable last.

I've established that it's possible for the conventional explanation and for salisburyboy's explanation both to be incorrect accountings of the story. That's what I wanted to accomplish.

And secondly, it'd demonstrate the types of intelligence failures that can lead to disasters of epic proportions when our intelligence apparatus is infiltrated by a single double agent. Not necessarily the ones that did, but the ones that could have. Given that the 9/11 Commission Report is missing classified sections, I consider that a granting of artistic license to speculate on what could be classified and why.

It doesn't have to be Jews. It could be aliens. Or Democrats. Or the Mafia. That's where I just don't get salisburyboy's reasoning. I want to understand where, why, and how he leaps from evidence of faulty reasoning or inaccuracy in the official account straight to an explanation. To me, it doesn't make a lick of sense to say any hypothesis about it would be credible at all, but that's why fiction's fiction. I'm just trying to write a good work of fiction, and through it understand why some people believe in fiction.

salisburyboy claims he believes what he does based on evidence. I'm just hoping to discover what that that evidence really is.

9/15/2006 4:18:11 AM

Quote :

"It's a little different than that. The telephone game didn't enable official sourcing, access to university studies, peer reviewed journals, or nearly the same level of information quality that the Internet does."

True, and one hopes that the common person would actually take advantage of those resources. Considering the popularity of Wikipedia however, I'm not so sure.

Besides, the whole point of the telephone game is that you simply take what you are told and pass it along without verifying it. Which I think is a fairly good description of what salisburyboy does. At least nowadays... he used to be a bit better.

Quote :

"I also like how you avoid the question of what particular conspiracy you believe about the Kennedy Assassination (the Warren Commission's, or any of the billion others)."

Kennedy died before I was born, so I really have no opinion on his death or any of the conspiracies behind it. It's hard for me to take such a stance on something that happened so long ago and that doesn't much affect me. It's lazy in a way, I guess, but that's just how it is, and unless you're really curious I don't see a need to really go into the why of it. I can look at the evidence, the history of it, sure, and form an opinion, but the emotional impact is not there. And evidence and accounts are distorted by time. My parents would be better people to ask, especially my father. I imagine he has his thoughts on it.

9/11 I saw, I lived through, and I saw the impact and consequences of it (and continue to see, I suppose). So I can make a better opinion of it. Kennedy died, and that's tragic, and I've often wondered what effect he would have had with a second term, but in the end stuff like that belongs on the History channel or the SciFi channel

9/15/2006 10:03:02 AM

Quote :

"Can you give me a range? More than 5? Less than 50?"

I'd say that at least 3 explicitly state involvement.

BTW, here's the link for the new tape that shows him with 9/11 hijackers:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/07/alqaeda.911/index.html

Quote :

"It's a synthesis of other evidence to be sure (like the rest of what you've provided), but a clear videotape of Osama Bin Laden directly claiming responsibility would be key in rebutting salisburyboy's claim on this matter. That'd almost be an open and shut case."

You would think so, wouldn't you? However, when someone believes in a monological conspiracy like salisburyboy does, they generally dismiss new evidence that could damage their belief structure. Anything contradictory is assumed to be part of the same conspiracy.

Quote :

"Out of simple curiosity, what is your hypothesis on the December 2001 tape's origin?"

Beats me. I'm still unsure as to whether or not it is authentic. Like you said when there are many other authenticated tapes of better quality showing basically the same information, then this piece of evidence doesn't conclusively prove anything.

Quote :

"But what if he knew about it, wasn't entirely innocent, but wasn't the orchestrator of the event?"

He could still release a tape stating that he wasn't responsible for it, or at least say that he didn't orchestrate to save face.

Quote :

"So, to what extent do you give credence to the overall picture painted by the 9/11 Commission Report?"

It gives the scenario that best fits the situation with the existing evidence. I have looked at a huge amount of 9/11 conspiracy information and have to see anything that would convince me otherwise.

Quote :

"In fact I've said on several occasions that we've established leaks to be acceptable. They wouldn't be credibly viewed or popularized anyway."

Jesse Macbeth and the Dan Rather memo are two recent stories that were initially viewed as credible (thanks to very little authentication) and were subsequently popularized. I have yet to see how an american intelligence operative could come forward with testimony regarding his role in the 9/11 attacks and be brushed aside.

Quote :

"My point was limited exclusively to the idea that it's entirely possible to conceal from low-level operatives what they are involved with."

It certainly is, although I doubt that it could be compartmentalized to the point that not a single low level operative had any clue what they were doing, especially with something on such a large scale.

Quote :

"I didn't ignore the many levels in between in my hypothetical example. I pulled them out to show how it'd be possible for a single agent to be deceived."

Isn't that unrealistic in something as complex as the intelligence community? Obviously scenarios exist where it would be limited to two people, however that isn't representative of a massive plot to destroy skyscrapers in Manhattan, hit the pentagon, and crash a plane in PA.

Quote :

"Ask the spooks. They're the ones doing the handling all the time. We don't get to find out about such matters until they're properly declassified."

Uh....I'll get right on that.

9/15/2006 1:50:02 PM

salisburyboy

I've thought of two fair questions that I think, and hope, you, me, and even Mr. Joshua would do well to consider. I'm curious what you think about them:

1) If the role of the intelligence services of the world is to conceive of ways to deceive others for the interests of individual actors in power, what do you think would form the basis of their power to perpetuate the myths that they were or were not involved with any given event in history?

I'll argue it breaks down to a mathematically expressible equation that can be used to think about, but probably not objectively measure (b/c of the inaccessibility of the accurate info involved), how its power on the world stage is derived.

Intelligence Organization's Power

I = The degree of accuracy of historically objective and scientifically accurate intelligence information (I%) at the organization's disposal for a given operation.

E = The organization's operational efficiency (E%) at successfully achieving its stated policy directives and mission objectives on a mission-by-mission basis, including every level of what is required for the mission.

C = The organization's operational capability (C%) to maximize the intelligence failures of rival intelligence organizations and minimize the intelligence failures of itself, and when it can be leveraged for diplomatic advantage, the intelligence failures of allied organizations.

R = The organization's resources (R) available to fund, employ, train, and sustain its operations. Not limited to those of any one nation, or the exclusive federal budget of the United States. As we know from the Terror Prisons, money is spent on intelligence apparati that we aren't aware of.

P = (R) * [ (I%) + (C%) + (E%) ]

This isn't economics' PRICE model. But it's an economic view of the power, measured by PRICE, of the intelligence organization.

2) What do you think? Is it sound? If not, how?

3) Can you explain your hypothesis in this context?

4) Is it possible to explain your hypothesis in this context?

5) What factors define whether one intelligence service is more powerful than the other?

6 What prevents rival intelligence services from conspiring against one another??

9/15/2006 3:56:44 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Isn't that unrealistic in something as complex as the intelligence community? Obviously scenarios exist where it would be limited to two people, however that isn't representative of a massive plot to destroy skyscrapers in Manhattan, hit the pentagon, and crash a plane in PA."

You wouldn't think so. But a conspiracy theorist could just as simply point to evidence of 2 people being involved, if evidence of it ever did surface, and through the magic of liguistics he could then say that it ESTABLISHES government participation in the conspiracy.

Once he's got participation, he's got a big question mark to face, though. Was it complicit participation? Was it a policy directive? Did the intelligence community fail on seemingly minor missions and is now trying to cover that up? Did they fail to realize they were being deceived by double agents within the bureaucracy of the intelligence communities and don't want the public to think they're incompetent?

In other words, so salisburyboy, you've established the government (or its intelligence services) could have plausibly been involved and be seeking to cover up the truth, NOW WHAT?

That's where reason and logic are forced to stop. I've logically granted possibility to his seemingly ultimate premise, but refuse to be cornered into asserting its likelihood as being correct. He's free to speculate, and can only fairly do so if he can (1) establish a hypothesis, and (2) establish the degree to which he believes that hypothesis is likely.

Hypothetically, grant him the highly unlikely premise that an intelligence agent may have accidentally been duped by double-agents within the department into participating in the attacks on even the lowest and inconsequential level. Just so you can see where he goes from there.

The more he avoids my questions, the more I feel he doesn't really have any hypothesis of his own. And his failure to state one simply confirms that he cannot accept that his current hypothesis could be wrong. I'm granting him his seemingly ultimate desire, that it's possible and plausible to establish conspiracy in this case. Where is his explanation of the probability of its credence though? Buried beneath his flaming hypocrisy that he could be just as deceived about what happened on 9/11 as everybody else.

9/15/2006 4:50:57 PM

50 pages of bullshit, wow. this is incredible

anyone ever met salisburyboy?

9/18/2006 5:35:20 AM

No. But if I had, I'd ask him why this story appeared in the news and if he even cares:

http://go.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=13520319

Quote :

"Vatican opens 1922-1939 archives By Philip Pullella VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican opened its secret archives on the papacy of Pius XI between 1922 and 1939 on Monday and said "unjust opinions" concerning its relations with Jews in the pre-World War Two period would be overturned. A source said some 60 people had come to the archives on the first day asking to consult the mass of documents, which consist of some 30,000 files totaling millions of pages. While the archives are for the papacy of Pius XI (born Achille Ratti), much of the attention by Jewish scholars will be concentrated on the figure of Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who succeeded Pius XI in 1939 and took the name Pius XII. Pacelli served as ambassador in Germany from 1917 to 1929 and later was Vatican secretary of state from 1930 to 1939, when he was elected Pontiff. He then reigned until 1958. Critics say Pacelli, whose views as a Vatican official being groomed for the papacy would be reflected in the files, did too little in the war to save European Jews from the Holocaust. In a long article in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Father Sergio Pagano, the head of the archives, said the material on the Vatican's view of Jews in the 17 years before the war would bring some surprises. "In this regard, some unjust judgments expressed in a recent book will perhaps be overturned," Pagano wrote, without mentioning the name of the book. The 1922-1939 archives are believed to include hitherto secret notes for internal policy sessions of the Secretariat of State, including what Pacelli said in strategy sessions about Jewish issues. For example, Edith Stein, a German convert from Judaism who was killed in Auschwitz, wrote to Pacelli in April 1933 about anti-Jewish repression in the early days of Nazi Germany. He responded a week later saying he had passed it on to Pius XI. VIEWS OF A FUTURE POPE The documents should also show Pacelli's private views on the 1933 Concordat with Nazi Germany, relations with Fascist Italy, the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War, the Nazi annexation of Austria and Britain and France's attempt to appease Hitler with the Munich Agreement in 1938. Pius XII toed a cautious line during the war to avoid reprisals against Catholics in Germany and Nazi-occupied countries. He was initially praised for speaking out as openly as he could and helping to save Jews in secret. This view changed radically in 1963, when German playwright Rolf Hochhuth depicted him in "The Deputy" as a cynic who kept silent despite knowing about the Holocaust. The two sides have feuded ever since with defenders saying he did everything possible to help Jews and critics presenting him as an anti-Semite and Germanophile whose views were formed while working in Germany before his election as pope. The opening of the archives from 1922 to 1939 was decided by the late Pope John Paul and the date was set by his successor Benedict. It was first announced last June. They will be open to qualified scholars who present the Vatican with a letter from a known research institute or university and a copy of their university degree. Historian have also called on the Vatican to fully open archives for the papacy of Pius XII (1939-1958) but there is no indication when that will happen."

9/19/2006 1:53:19 AM

Da j00z are going nuts trying to combat the truth that organized Jewry orchestrated the 9/11 attacks...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/772321.html

Quote :

"The great blood libel of Sept. 11 By Bradley Burston, Haaretz Correspondent Oct. 10th, 2006 Blood libels never die, they just get digitized. Thanks to new media, ancient prejudices need never fade away. So it is that Jew hate, nothing if not adaptable, has become easier to disseminate than ever before. Bigotry as old as time can now be downloaded, podcast, cable cast, sat-phoned, text-messaged, downloaded, YouTubed across state lines, oceans, and all continental borders at the touch of a grimy button."

"Blood libel", "Jew hate", "bigotry", blah, blah, blah. The lame buzzwords are losing their sting.

And thanks to the "new media" (ie, an alternative to the Jewish-controlled mainstream media), THE TRUTH CAN REACH THE MASSES.

Quote :

"At this point, you never quite know where you're going to find it next, or what form it will take. This year, I found it at Ground Zero. I was handed a complimentary DVD by a 9/11 conspiracist. It was a newly enhanced version of the Protocols of the new millennium, the theory - simultaneously promulgated by elements of the far left, the far right, and fundamentalist Islam, people who in every other respect hate each others' guts and each others' every opinion - that it was Israel and the Mossad that brought down the World Trade Center."

By comparing the Protocols to the idea that Jews were involved in the 9/11 attacks, they are unintentionally bolstering the credibility of the Protocols. Hahaha. Notice the similarity in the way they deal with the issues of 9/11 and the Protocols...fierce, flat-out denial of any truth to the allegations...."blood libel"...."forgery"....etc. YET, in both cases there is very much indeed truth to the allegations.

Quote :

"The Anti-Defamation League and other groups have labored mightily to combat the theories."

With what? Lame articles that hurl insults and smear and don't substantively address the issues.

Quote :

"Reviewing five years of intensive activity, however, the ADL said last month that "Today, those theories are even more widespread and some have taken their anti-Semitic allegations even farther by claiming that it was specifically Jewish members of the Bush Administration who directed the government in planning the attacks for the benefit of Israel.""

Oh, so they're trying to brush off FACTS as mere theories, huh? Not going to work.

Quote :

"The examples are endless, the conclusion one: The Jews did it. The Jew media covered it up. The Jews did it so that America would have to go to war, shedding the blood of Christian boys in a fight against Israel's Muslim enemies. "Never in the history of the Jewish people has one terrible lie about 'Jewish control' spread so quickly and with such power, captivating not only those on the extreme fringe but the educated elite, particularly in the Muslim and Arab word," ADL National Director Foxman said in 2003."

No, Foxman. This idea has spread quickly because it is THE TRUTH.

Quote :

""The Big Lie has been repeated by imams, the press and government officials in the Arab world, and is contributing to disturbing and dangerous mutations in global anti-Semitism.""

Yes, yes, yes. Scream "anti-Semitism." It MUST be that people everywhere all over the world just "hate the jews" FOR NO LOGICAL REASON AT ALL. It's a psychological phenomenon. It has nothing to do with facts or reality.

Can you sense the desperation?



[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 12:29 PM. Reason : 2]

10/10/2006 12:25:21 PM

THATS SOME REALLY GOOD COCAINE I GOT FROM SALISBURYBOY, I WAS BELIEVING EVERYONE WAS OUT TO GET ME, ESPECIALLY THE ZIONIST-ORCHESTRATED US GOVT

10/10/2006 12:27:49 PM

Wow, 50 pages?

10/10/2006 1:10:10 PM

50 pages of absolute insane bullshit.

10/10/2006 1:57:55 PM

Believe it or not, he is actually making less sense than he was 49 pages ago.

I remember a day when he would actually talk about his so called evidence, rather than simply posting articles about believing 9/11 theories and then logging of without discussion.

The fact that he can't prove squat in 50 pages (100+ pages if you count his various other threads about the same topic) says a lot about his position.

10/10/2006 3:48:21 PM

^yeah i believe it

and also 49 pages ago a number of the theories had not yet been debunked, so he had a lot less purposeful counter arguments to hinder his brainwashing

10/10/2006 4:21:34 PM

The people that have gone round and round with him over 50 pages worth definitely look like the bigger idiots. And I'm not trolling here, you can't win an argument with an idiot, so why are you trying?

10/10/2006 4:25:35 PM

its more entertaining than playing minesweeper, thats really about it

10/10/2006 4:26:39 PM

I think salisburyboy's going to want to see South Park tonight!

10/11/2006 7:39:27 PM

The government wants you to believe that they were responsible for 9/11. If people believe that (the retarded 1/4) then they will also believe that the government is all powerful and all knowing.


So who is responsible for 9/11?



A bunch of pissed off muslims.

10/12/2006 9:40:24 AM

Good article...

http://www.rense.com/general73/whyd.htm

Quote :

"Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement By Douglas Herman Exclusive to Rense.com 10-11-6 Two kinds of 9-11 truth deniers (debunkers) exist today: Those who deny our government has the expertise to carry out the 9-11 attack, and those who deny our government is diabolical enough to do it. Both are sadly mistaken. If you present them with the many suspicious anomalies of 9-11, they demand your proof. If you present them with proof, they deny it with scarcely a glance. If you mention the scientific laws that were broken on 9-11, they claim you are no authority. If you quote an authority, they claim he is no expert in that particular field. All truths passes through three stages, said the philosopher Schopenauer. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Debunkers, those people who adamantly deny government involvement in the 9-11 conspiracy, who adamantly deny such a conspiracy could even occur, are stuck in the first and second stages. At first it may seem we are battling an insurgency here. The debunkers are strong, well-organized and well-funded. They are smart. They have strength and numbers; cunning and clever intelligence. They use persuasive power and intimidation, propaganda and a network of allies. Their strongest attribute is their sincere belief that to "debunk" your every argument--no matter how sound--is the purest form of patriotism. Indeed, Saul of Tarsus believed he was a pure, patriotic warrior for God, persecuting the early Christian believers. That is, until he reportedly got knocked off his horse and changed his name to Paul and became a believer himself. The saddest part of our struggle with this insurgency is that many of these debunkers appear to be honest but misguided patriots. They range from diehard conservatives, believers in the US government's version of 9-11 events, to the so-called, "Left Gatekeepers," the strident liberal critics of an increasingly dictatorial state who nonetheless believe every key component of the 9-11 attack as told to them by their government. The exact same government they loudly criticize for lying to them in every other facet. Debunkers, not content in their core beliefs, slam those of us who question any facet of 9-11. They deride us as conspiracy nuts and loonies. Or worse, desecraters and traitors. We in the 9-11 Truth Movement are battling a desperate insurgency. Desperation is the key word; time is not on their side. They recognize the rising danger of a well-informed American citizenry. From Leftists Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky to Neocon apologists and 9-11 debunkers Tucker Carlson, Hannity & Colmes and Condi Rice, they have shouldered the government's propaganda burden to suppress the rising tide of information and clarion calls that clamor for a true investigation of 9-11 events. [...] But just why are debunkers good for the 9-11 truth movement? Because they serve a great purpose. And as mentioned, many of them are true patriots, good, conscientious citizens. They want what we want. Good honest government. Perhaps the greatest benefit of so-called debunkers is that they prod, goad, ridicule and agitate. They challenge us--and who doesn't like a good challenge?---to get our 9-11 facts straight. Prodding us to dig deeper and sift the truth from the fiction. Goading us to devise more convincing arguments. Ridiculing us for embracing whatever rumor we may have heard as scientific fact. Agitating us to such a degree we stubbornly redouble our efforts. [...]"

[Edited on October 12, 2006 at 12:22 PM. Reason : 1]

10/12/2006 12:20:26 PM

yet another [bullshit] article and link and NO discussion.

wonderful.

can't wait for the next installment in a few days.

A+++++ would read again.

10/12/2006 3:38:50 PM

Holy dog shit this thread is still going on?

10/12/2006 3:42:24 PM

Quote :

"I remember a day when he would actually talk about his so called evidence, rather than simply posting articles about believing 9/11 theories and then logging of without discussion. The fact that he can't prove squat in 50 pages (100+ pages if you count his various other threads about the same topic) says a lot about his position."

10/12/2006 4:50:46 PM

why do those hardy boys have to be so good at solving mysteries?

10/12/2006 5:20:09 PM

ahahahahaha

the entire "hit piece" is on prisonplanet

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/121006Southpark.htm

10/12/2006 5:30:44 PM

he says 40% of the country thinks the government was behind 9/11. I wanna know what the sample size for that poll was. Obviously this guy doesn't know that they said all those kooks were retards.

10/12/2006 11:18:18 PM

Salisburyboy posted a link to an MSNBC poll that showed that 58% of americans believed that the government was behind 9/11.

Then I realized that prisonplanet had linked the same poll and skewed it with everyone who visits their site.

10/12/2006 11:21:29 PM

it only makes sense that the gov. is behind the 911 conspiracy sites

if they pulled off 911, they would easily be able to control a few websites

[Edited on October 12, 2006 at 11:47 PM. Reason : 5]

10/12/2006 11:45:01 PM

Jewish attack dog and defamation experts the ADL come out against 9/11 truth tellers yet again...

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4905_52.htm

Quote :

"Wisconsin Instructor's 9/11 Conspiracy Theories ill-serve Students Chicago, IL, October 11, 2006 ... University of Wisconsin instructor Kevin Barrett's use of 9/11 conspiracy theories and choice of a textbook that equates President George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler and bashes Israel raise serious questions about whether he has crossed the line into political advocacy, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said today. "While we respect academic freedom, ADL is deeply concerned that the students in Barrett's class are receiving a taxpayer-funded indoctrination into the instructor's personal political views that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, that America is equivalent to Nazi Germany and that Israel is a racist state," said Lonnie Nasatir, Regional Director of ADL's Upper Midwest office and a University of Wisconsin alumnus. [...] ADL has documented the increasing reach of conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks, which often take on anti-Semitic and anti-American overtones. "These 9/11 conspiracies are used to demonize Jews, Israel and America, and have become part of the core belief systems of anti-Semites and millions of others around the world," said Nasatir. "It is deeply troubling that a prestigious public university would choose to offer a class that provides fodder to extremists, rather than seek to debunk these myths.""

I guess the ADL has pretty much accepted the fact that a large portion of people in the 9/11 truth movement know the truth about Jewish control of the U.S. Government, Mossad/Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks, etc.

You see...knowing the truth about any number of important issues (eg, Jewish control of the mainstream media, 9/11, etc.) necessitates that the ADL and others pitch a hissy fit and scream and holller "anti-Semitism." Why? Because they hate that you're exposing the truth about them, and they want to intimidate you into silence and attempt to smear your reputation.

10/13/2006 12:42:56 PM

Talk about a shoddy attack on the 9/11 Truth Movement...check out Bill O'Reilly's verbal assault against 9/11 truth activist Jim Fetzer. All O'Reilly does is sling pejorative statements at the guy, calling him a "nut", "loon", accusing him of "hating America", etc. As in other instances where the MSM has people on to discuss an alternative view on a subject like this, the host won't give the speaker much of an opportunity to actually discuss the subject...but repeatedly interrupts them and tries to fluster them. O'Reilly even ADMITS he doesn't want to give the guy the chance to lay out his argument. Then, at the close of the interview, O'Reilly says Bush should sick the FBI on people like Fetzer.

Read the transcript. It's a joke. And the best argument O'Reilly can make against the position of the skeptics of the official 9/11 story is that because the "Bush-hating" NY Times and other mainstream media hasn't given voice to the position, it can't possibly be true. Sorry, Bill. We know the mainstream media is controlled and basically a mouthpiece for the government, supporting the war and virtually everything else the government does.

The mainstream media will not debate the issue of 9/11 and discuss the facts. All they do is smear the skeptics and dismiss their arguments without considering them or discussing/debating them rationally.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220500,00.html

Quote :

"O'Reilly Takes on 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist! FOXNews Friday, October 13, 2006 [...] OREILLY: ...You know, I'm getting a little tired of Barrett and Ward Churchill and other college professors who hate their country and who bring this hatred onto a campus full of impressionable students. Am I wrong to be offended and angry about that, sir? [...] O'REILLY: ...You want to be a nut? You can be a nut. And you are a nut...You're like the guys who think that the space aliens kidnapped Elvis or something like that; that's where you are, in my opinion. So your opinion is that Bush murdered everybody on 9/11 to seize control and make him the dictator of America, or whatever the crazy thing is. And my opinion is, you're nuts. You can't get in the San Francisco Chronicle or the National Enquirer or anywhere, because you don't have anything other than a harebrained theory. And you know it. [...] O'REILLY: I hope they go to your dopey Web site, and I hope they read your stuff. So I just want to — this is how crazy you guys are. And you guys are really — number one, you hate your country. And, number two, you're a loon. [...] O'REILLY: You hate your country... [...] FETZER: Bill, you're obviously not going to give me a chance to talk about any of these things, so... O'REILLY: No, I'm not, because you're a nut."

Ooooooooh!

O'Reilly sure won that one. Called the guy every derogatory name in the book, cut him off repeatedly and even admitted he wouldn't give him the chance to lay out his argument, and said that since the mainstream media wasn't giving their position voice, it couldn't possibly be true. CASE CLOSED!

10/13/2006 4:35:57 PM

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

Quote :

"THIS IS ALL ENTIRELY NEW AND WORTH DEBATING I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS IDEA OR ITS "EVIDENCE" PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IN FACT, I DOUBT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING PRESENTED IN SUCH A BOLDED MANNER EVER AGAIN I SAY GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866, GOOD FUCKING JOB"

10/13/2006 4:37:08 PM

We know dude. You can't debate me on the facts. All you can hope to do is distract from my message...or try to run me out of here and have me (and others with opinions like me) censored.

10/13/2006 4:50:54 PM

YOU

ARE

A MEATHEAD.

10/13/2006 4:53:08 PM

We're winning. You know that don't you? I know it has to make you quite angry.

10/13/2006 4:54:53 PM

haha this is unbelievable

10/13/2006 4:57:14 PM

Quote :

"haha this is unbelievable"

Quote :

"All truths passes through three stages, said the philosopher Schopenauer. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

So, you're really still in stage one.? Or just pretending to be? I'm sensing more of stage 2 from you.

10/13/2006 5:03:21 PM

i'm in stage 3 actually

except the truth is that radical muslims organized 9/11, not the US Govt

10/13/2006 5:04:44 PM

salisburyboy, if you look back through this very thread you will see 50 pages of people trying to discuss the facts with you. Sadly, whenever something is presented that damages your case you simply choose to ignore it.

You're now at some weird new stage where instead of trying to convince people that 9/11 was an inside job you post articles about how persecuted you and the rest of the Alex Jones fan club is.

Please present the facts that you want to discuss. I have a number of questions that you have been ignoring for 40 pages, would you like me to repost them in order to further the discussion that you want to have?

Probably not. If I repost them, you will ignore them. Then the next time that someone says anything bad you can flip out and tell them that no one is willing to discuss the issues with you.

As far as people in the mainstream media "slandering" people who share your viewpoint, why don't you hold Alex Jones to the same standard? Every single article of his that you have posted has been full of unnecessary name calling aimed at people who simply have a different opinion than him. People like Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson as simple pundits, Alex Jones however, is a leader of your "movement" - why is he exempt from your standards?

10/13/2006 6:28:49 PM

Only 16% of Americans now believe the government is telling the truth on 9/11. 81% believe government is lying or hiding something. 28% believe government is "mostly lying."

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

Quote :

"Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence Source: The New York Times / CBS News October 14, 2006 Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying. Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002. [...]"

10/16/2006 2:39:43 PM

that doesn't mean that any less people think you're a kook.

10/16/2006 2:42:54 PM