9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[editor]

Did I say that? Ooh, look. I didn't.

So who are the "apologists in this thread" who are "pretending" it's "entirely reasonable and OK" for the Pentagon to "lie to the country it is supposed to serve?"

Why has my complaint about being lied about on these boards (by one of your mods) been ignored?

<sighs at wild off topic diversion>

That's because:
1. it had nothing to do with me
2. I had no knowledge of the claims being made
3. It appears you got your facts wrong too, but I haven't any interest in getting involved because I haven't got time to waste on petty bollocks. I haven't got a clue who you are either, so your outraged claims of being defamed all over Brixton didn't really make much headway with me.

Mind you, because some person went around waving a print out of the thread - which I had fuck all involvement with, mind - to various 'interested parties' I nearly ended up getting personal grief as a result, so forgive me if I don't give a flying fuck about your whining on the matter.

 

[Jonti]

So you agree Fela wasn't off-topic then. That's good.

Ah. I see you're trying to be clever...

The word you are searching for, apparently in vain, is yes. More fully, "Yes, the guy was on-topic, but I'm having trouble admitting it."

 

[editor]

I'd like to see answers to those questions too.

Me too.

 

[editor]

The word you are searching for, apparently in vain, is yes. More fully, "Yes, the guy was on-topic, but I'm having trouble admitting it."

Thanks for your valuable input.

 

[kyser_soze]

According to you and the right-wing papers (like the Guardian, who today had a nasty pro-Israel article written by their favourite Yankee fascist Lionel Shriver - the Telegraph and Mail being basically fascist papers)

I've seen the Guardian called some things in my time, but right wing? Just because it employs r/wing contributors into it's op-ed pages doesn't make it a r/wing newspaper! And while the Torygraph is r/wing, describing it as fascist is a bit strong don't you think?

Good post squegee...or rather good points buried under an avalanche of rhetoric.

 

[Jonti]

Thanks for your valuable input.

And thank you for making it possible.

Respect.

 

[editor]

According to you and the right-wing papers (like the Guardian, who today had a nasty pro-Israel article written by their favourite Yankee fascist Lionel Shriver - the Telegraph and Mail being basically fascist papers) this makes me a conspiraloon.

I'm basing my opinion on you on your posts here and nothing else.

And you've posted up some laughable bollocks. Reams of the stuff.
Like claiming the Guardian is 'right wing' and the Telegraph 'fascist,' for example.

 

[squeegee]

I've seen the Guardian called some things in my time, but right wing? Just because it employs r/wing contributors into it's op-ed pages doesn't make it a r/wing newspaper! And while the Torygraph is r/wing, describing it as fascist is a bit strong don't you think?

Good post squeegee...or rather good points buried under an avalanche of rhetoric.

Who's their star writer? Simon "anti-war" Jenkins. Nuff said. Martin Jacques is a top writer but the general tone on all the major subjects is what I would call liberal right-wing. The few truly radical writers on there are buried by the continual bollocks of supposed left-wing writers such as Polly "NHS" Toynbee et al. They supported the war remember.

 

[kyser_soze]

Still doesn't make the r/wing, and the same newspaper also has Gary Yonge & George Monbiot as 'star' writers - so what's your point?

But right wing? I think you need your political compass realigned fella!

And the only paper that didn't support the war was the Mirror...

 

[editor]

Who's their star writer? Simon "anti-war" Jenkins. Nuff said. Martin Jacques is a top writer but the general tone on all the major subjects is what I would call liberal right-wing. The few truly radical writers on there are buried by the continual bollocks of supposed left-wing writers such as Polly "NHS" Toynbee et al. They supported the war remember.

Ah. So with a deft shift of the goalposts, you're now downgrading them from out and out "right wing" to "liberal right-wing," yes?

And how about the 'fascist' Telegraph? How does that work then?

 

[squeegee]

Ah. So with a deft shift of the goalposts, you're now downgrading them from out and out "right wing" to "liberal right-wing," yes?

And how about the 'fascist' Telegraph? How does that work then?

Try reading the editorials, then work it out. Pravda is old style journalism. This modern-style fools alot of people. Obvious from the incredulity to my suggestions. But then right-wing, fascist, just words eh?

They help sustain the bullshit. And so do you.

Anyway back to work. Have fun and watch out for them Guardianistas

 

[editor]

This modern-style fools alot of people. Obvious from the incredulity to my suggestions.

Ah, so we're all stupid people being fooled, but clever ol' you can see 'the truth', yes?

 

[Jonti]

is it fascism yet?

Without getting overly exited, fascism is when big government, big business, and the military all get into bed together, and citizens are required to surrender their rights for the good of that system.

Of course there's room for honest mistakes on this. But my take is that the Telegraph, and the Mail, would follow that as far as it goes. The Mail actually does have form on this, of course.

 

[squeegee]

Ah, so we're all stupid people being fooled, but clever ol' you can see 'the truth', yes?

Up to your old cliches again I see

 

[editor]

Up to your old cliches again I see

Only trying to get to the root of what appears to be your arrogant, overblown statement about all those stupid people being "fooled", but not, apparently, clever ol' you.

 

[squeegee]

Why is it arrogant to demonstrate intelligence or to point out another's ignorance? Every word you write is filled with deceitfulness. You're not searching for truth. As ever you're point scoring. If anyone's displaying arrogance...

 

[WouldBe]

Why is it arrogant to demonstrate intelligence or to point out another's ignorance? Every word you write is filled with deceitfulness. You're not searching for truth. As ever you're point scoring. If anyone's displaying arrogance...

Since when does taking the word of some unqualified numpty over that of an expert qualified in the subject equate to 'searching for the truth'?

By posting up unqualified numpty delusions it is the conspiraloons who are being deceitful.

 

[squeegee]

Since when does taking the word of some unqualified numpty over that of an expert qualified in the subject equate to 'searching for the truth'?

By posting up unqualified numpty delusions it is the conspiraloons who are being deceitful.

How do you qualify someone being unqualified? Anyone who takes the word of mainstream journalists as fact is a numpty to me.

 

[Crispy]

Indeed. There's lots of apparent expertise, but when I read things like:

The BRE did a test on an 8 story steel building to see what effects fire had on it. It didn't fall down"

Used to prove that it wasn't fire that brought the towers down, it really pisses me off. There's such a lack of rigour, genuine analysis or actual expertise on display, that the actual nuggets of truth which I accept may exist on the '911research' websites are impossible to find or even take seriously.

I went looking - looking real hard - for a detailed structural engineer's analysis of the wtc collapse and couldn't find one that didn't support the 'official' story. If there's one out there, I'd love to read it.

 

[editor]

Why is it arrogant to demonstrate intelligence or to point out another's ignorance?

It's arrogant when you're unable to provide any meaningful proof of your supposedly 'superior' intelligence, just bluster and insults.

Every word you write is filled with deceitfulness.

What a deeply unpleasant personal attack.

 

[kyser_soze]

Indeed. There's lots of apparent expertise, but when I read things like:

The BRE did a test on an 8 story steel building to see what effects fire had on it. It didn't fall down"

Used to prove that it wasn't fire that brought the towers down, it really pisses me off. There's such a lack of rigour, genuine analysis or actual expertise on display, that the actual nuggets of truth which I accept may exist on the '911research' websites are impossible to find or even take seriously.

I went looking - looking real hard - for a detailed structural engineer's analysis of the wtc collapse and couldn't find one that didn't support the 'official' story. If there's one out there, I'd love to read it.

It's the same with this ex-CIA dudes article - he references 'forensic evidence' for there being traces of explosives in the debris fields from the towers, possibly supporting the 'demolition' theory...and then does nothing to link to them, quote who carried out said examination as a source...it just says to me 'more extrapolated/surmised bollocks', of which there is a torrent about 9/11.

I also don't buy that 'X and Y academic are interested, so it must be true' - there were academics more than happy to say Oswald didn't do it for 3 decades until some bright spark thought to do a CGI reconstruction of the event which proved that it was Oswald...

 

[WouldBe]

It's the same with this ex-CIA dudes article - he references 'forensic evidence' for there being traces of explosives in the debris fields from the towers, possibly supporting the 'demolition' theory

And conspiraloons always complain then no tests were carried out to check for traces of explosives. So either the CIA dude is wrong or the conspiraloons are. They can't both be right.unless your a conspiraloon.

 

[squeegee]

It's arrogant when you're unable to provide any meaningful proof of your supposedly 'superior' intelligence, just bluster and insults.What a deeply unpleasant personal attack.

I'm just going by what you write Editor. I met you briefly at the offline night and you seem like an alright person. Of course if I had said who my username was you might not have given me the time of day. I suppose you could say that was deceitful. But it wasn't. I just wanted to enjoy the night, and certainly didn't want to talk shop. So I had a good night.

AFAIC this BB stuff is different to real life. You may have many reasons for adopting the manner you do on your posts. But it does smack of deceitfulness when you avoid answering questions and continually make personal attacks yourself. And your mock hurt after all you've said about me is just not washing with me. It's not personal, I'm just going by what you're writing. Asking for proof is your way of avoiding discussing the issues.

My point, and I maintain it, is that all the mainstream media veer towards the right. To judge the tone just go by the editorials. And the Guardian editorials basically believe Tony Blair is simply a good man making some mistakes, but they believe in the war on terror. And that makes them right-wing to me.

And they print theory as fact. None of us can know as fact what's going on, so it's all conjecture. But you talk of fact and then quote Channel 4 as a reliable source when discussing the 7/7 "paper" drill. And that's when the argument can go nowhere cos you are setting the parameters of what is acceptable fact. And that can't be right.

So the question comes down to who you believe. And I don't believe ANYTHING that comes from the government, and very little coming out of mainstream journalism.

Don't you agree?

You see if you were up front and honest you would simply say you agreed with that. You won't lose anything. You might find that if you tried to find some common ground, as I have done with you, that the discussion might be more fruitful.

But that would be too easy. You prefer to play these silly games.

And as for unqualified? Well, working in journalism for the last 8 years means I have some insight into how journalists work and think. And believe me, its not pretty.

It's not about superior intelligence. But if I know something is wrong I should be able to say so without that peculiarly English phenomenon of trying to bring down anyone who attempts to point out ignorant thought or behaviour rearing its ugly head.

Using three syllable words...college boy!!!! Let's burn the college boy, he thinks he's better than us

Grow up

 

[editor]

Using three syllable words...college boy!!!! Let's burn the college boy, he thinks he's better than us

What the fuck are you on about?

Every word you write is filled with deceitfulness.

That is a deeply unpleasant lie. Kindly withdraw the remark.

 

[squeegee]

Lionel Shriver on Israel

"Begrudgingly admitting that maybe with Israel in it rather than disappeared the world is a more compelling place - or, even at the unfortunate cost of Palestinian displacement, more historically just - doesn't necessitate supporting its government's policies at every juncture."

My bolds. Do you think that commissioning a writer who thinks that murder and mayhem is "compelling", or that the creation of the state of Israel is historically just and that Palestinian displacement was just "unfortunate" is the mark of a paper that cares about the plight of the Palestinians?

How is this article acceptable in a supposedly liberal paper? Oh yeah, it's a liberal right-wing paper. And she does criticise the Israeli government. How noble of her. And don't get me started on the PPP apologist Polly Toynbee.

Of course I still buy it. But increasingly it's getting harder as they are veering further and further to the right. And that is especially the case in their trite, middle-class analysis of Muslims.

It's not just Muslims who think the UK/US governments are liars and murderers. Guess what? I do too.

 

[squeegee]

What the fuck are you on about?That is a deeply unpleasant lie. Kindly withdraw the remark.

You never watched the Simpsons?

 

[editor]

It's not just Muslims who think the UK/US governments are liars and murderers. Guess what? I do too.

Gosh! What a revelation! Who'd have thought it etc etc.

 

[editor]

You never watched the Simpsons?

Make an intelligent point or shut the fuck up please.

I've no idea what the Simpsons has to do with your unpleasant lie that "every word I write is filled with deceitfulness."

 

[squeegee]

What the fuck are you on about? That is a deeply unpleasant lie. Kindly withdraw the remark.

Can you prove it's a lie? Show me the evidence

 

[Crispy]

Can you prove it's a lie? Show me the evidence

That's quite actually