9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
squeegee said:
The onus is on you - if you come up with some barking theory - to justify how you came to believe in that sequence of events.
How did you come to the conclusion that nobody had investigated the financial irregularities in American Airlines by the way. Did you actually look into media reports and ask journalists or did you, as I suspect, fall for this urban myth hook line and sinker after reading it on some 911 conspiracy favouring website. So much for independent thought and getting to the truth, more a circle jerk of the usual suspects desperately looking for anything 'suspicious'
I may be cynical about the motivations of the govt, but I'm sure as hell not going to swap their version of events with someone who's a habit of claiming all sorts of inaccurate nonsense.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I would not be in the least surprised to discover some years from now, that one or more of the crazier spook-linked neo-cons, someone like Michael Ledeen say, with excellent intelligence fringe and terror group contacts, may indeed have been involved in faciliatating 911 for the 'pearl harbour' reasons outlined in that notorious PNAC document.
I think there is zero chance of knowing for sure in the near future though and I've long ago given up paying attention to "911 revelations" because far too much of what is out there is obviously bollocks.
It seems inconceivable to me that any truly convincing evidence will emerge while Bush and co still control the White House and both houses of Congress.
On the other hand, if the Democrats take control of one or other houses, then there is a reasonable chance of impeachment hearings, or at least some real scrutiny of the manufacturing of reasons to go to war with the Middle East. In due course, we may start see some ugly stuff as a result of such inquiries.
That's how we found out most of what we know about Iran-Contra after all, and if something like that did happen, we're probably talking about at least some of the same people involved in doing it.
I think there is zero chance of knowing for sure in the near future though and I've long ago given up paying attention to "911 revelations" because far too much of what is out there is obviously bollocks.
It seems inconceivable to me that any truly convincing evidence will emerge while Bush and co still control the White House and both houses of Congress.
On the other hand, if the Democrats take control of one or other houses, then there is a reasonable chance of impeachment hearings, or at least some real scrutiny of the manufacturing of reasons to go to war with the Middle East. In due course, we may start see some ugly stuff as a result of such inquiries.
That's how we found out most of what we know about Iran-Contra after all, and if something like that did happen, we're probably talking about at least some of the same people involved in doing it.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
But it doesn't much matter how the weapon systems were activated. The point is that they know the plane was there alright.kyser_soze said:
And there's this
So Rogers was inside Iranian territirial waters at the time he caused the airliner to be attacked. And the good Admiral somehow fudged the fact. Funny that.
Look, I'm not getting exited about this stuff. The nature of time and consciousness is much more interesting to me. But a person has to be a heck of an officialloony to believe amoral force majeure is unthinkable in the silly games States play with people's lives. We can safely accept this sort of shit does go down.
Pinning down any one specific event is, of course, bloody hard.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Come on, they were about to get a bollocking on the stage of international opinion...I take it that when you got into trouble with your parents or at school you *always* told the truth and never, ever 'forgot' any pertinent details?
I mean I know the scale is different but the principle is the same - when confronted with questioning about something serious that they know to be wrong and embarassing they'll lie (you read the rest of the wiki entry so I don't need to quote the relevant bits)
I mean I know the scale is different but the principle is the same - when confronted with questioning about something serious that they know to be wrong and embarassing they'll lie (you read the rest of the wiki entry so I don't need to quote the relevant bits)
"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10."
If it wasn't so sad. The commission decided that this dealer was ok. But none of us can know who the person was. And that doesn't strike you as suspicious.
And give over with the pathetic attempts to suggest I don't know how to research.
You should learn how to decipher bullshit from documented evidence such as the one you just posted.
If it wasn't so sad. The commission decided that this dealer was ok. But none of us can know who the person was. And that doesn't strike you as suspicious.
And give over with the pathetic attempts to suggest I don't know how to research.
You should learn how to decipher bullshit from documented evidence such as the one you just posted.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
kyser_soze said:
I'm sure you don't mean this to sound like "So the people entrusted with our defence and protection lied. So what? You'd do the same in their position, wouldn't you?". But that strikes me as a harsh, but fair, precis of what you've said.
No, I wouldn't lie. I'm really, really, crap at telling lies. My neurones are in the wrong place for it or something
If they did lie, their mendacity makes them treasonous cunts. The future security of their nation depends on their telling the truth. This is not about fibbing to parents or teachers. No way. This is about dishonestly undermining the security of your country. And if they are treasonous cunts now, well, when did they *start* being treasonous cunts?
You see the problem. Why trust a liar?
squeegee said:"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10."
If it wasn't so sad. The commission decided that this dealer was ok. But none of us can know who the person was. And that doesn't strike you as suspicious.
You should learn how to decipher bullshit from documented evidence such as the one you just posted.
Nice moving of the goalposts. From someone now claiming 'it highly suspicious that this would not be invesigated in the 911 commission's report' you're now pretending to admit that you knew there was something in depth in the report on that very subject, only now you don't believe it.
What a laughable liar and bullshit merchant you are. Why not admit that you've been caught out repeating more nonsense without research yet again? And you do know that it's almost certainly possible for you find out who that dealer was with a little research - there's no mention that the commercial information was masked
Get off your arse and look for yourself, not rely on more chatter and silly speculation.
tarannau said:
Is Gore Vidal part of the urban myth? Cos he mentions it, as well as the insurance on the twin towers changing hands just before 911. How about Seymour Hersch and his insistence that the US are preparing for a war with Iran? Does that count as remotely credible in your book?
It seems an absolutely crazy strategy. There's no conceivable way, surely that the US could win a ground war, which leaves a mini-nuke attack.
And they need a real good reason for this. They are trying, but the public ain't buying it. But maybe a bigger attack on the West might be a good enough reason. But even then I don't think public opinion will buy it. And they need public opinion to at least be compliant.
And if the Guardian are writing in their editorial of the "threat" of Iran, or Iran "sabre-rattling" as they have done, how can we expect the mainstream media to do thier job and be every bit as alarmed at the seeming intent of the military top-brass, and attempt to stop what is a tyrannical strategy?
And this has been the hallmark of all government as mentioned before. It's just that now with an educated opulation, the internet etc. more people are aware of it.
And yes that also means there are people who vaguely know how to research falling for alot of conspiracy bullshit from individuals out to make money on top of it.
But leaves a hell of alot of established academics and journalists who are also questioning the official line.
I'm as prone to making mistakes as the next man. But I'm pretty confident I can separate the paranoia and misinformation from the reasonable suspicions I continually go on about.
Anyway, off out. Laters officialoons and conspiraloons
tarannau said:Nice moving of the goalposts. From someone now claiming 'it highly suspicious that this would not be invesigated in the 911 commission's report' you're now pretending to admit that you knew there was something in depth in the report on that very subject, only now you don't believe it.
What a laughable liar and bullshit merchant you are. Why not admit that you've been caught out repeating more nonsense without research yet again? And you do know that it's almost certainly possible for you find out who that dealer was with a little research - there's no mention that the commercial information was masked
Get off your arse and look for yourself, not rely on more chatter and silly speculation.
fuck you. that was a side note. they didn't investigate in the open discussion. they came to the discussion and said there was nothing worth investigating. i'm well aware of that. and that's not good enough for me and smakcs of a cover-up.
leave off with the insults and try using your reasoning powers. my point stands. end of.
goalposts
kyser_soze said:
Weren't OBL's relatives having a meeting with GHWB's cronies in the Carlyle group on 9/11??
That was why they had to break the no-fly rule to get them out of the country. Despite the fact that the FBI wanted to question 2 of them. According to Greg Palast's research, anyhow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Yawn . . . the "insider trader" theory . . .
"Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. "
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
Common sence would also suggest it would have been a bit stupud for OBL to have attempted this sort of stunt using exchange traded instruments.
"Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. "
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
Common sence would also suggest it would have been a bit stupud for OBL to have attempted this sort of stunt using exchange traded instruments.
squeegee said:Is Gore Vidal part of the urban myth?
I'm as prone to making mistakes as the next man. But I'm pretty confident I can separate the paranoia and misinformation from the reasonable suspicions I continually go on about.
Anyway, off out. Laters officialoons and conspiraloons
So is that a mealy mouthed way of saying that you just copied someone else's opinion and voiced it as a fact, swallowing what they said without checking or thinking it through for yourself?
I don't care if it's Gore Vidal, the Honey Monster or the Gnaris Barkley - you're still so keen to mouth off based on nothing but a single article and someone's past reputation. It's lazy nonsense of the highest order, someone all too keen to criticize journalists and the 'official media' - yet willing to undertake less research than a 2-bit local hack and swallow 'facts' without question from certain sources.
FWIW I'm fine with folks making an honest mistake, yet you're the one to pounce on often minimal inconsistencies and mistakes in official documents, proclaiming them in some way to be proof of some conspiracy or other. And - in this thread alone - you've confidently asserted something that turns out to be entirely wrong (the 911 commission did investigate the financial irregularities, as did plenty of journos) and then sought to evasively claim that you actually hadn't made a mistake and avoid apologising, instead hinting that the error was inconsequential and that you could interpret the reality of the report better than the others who had actually taken the time to read it. That's hardly creditworthy is it.
I'm a cynical bugger who'd love to see Bush and Blair brought down by proof of some jaw-dropping conspiracy that's defrauded the UK public. But I'm equally cynical about the 'expertise' of numpties on bulletin boards who continually and unapologetically swallow any old conspiracy-based nonsense like credulous patsies, bound to repeat the rumours of others without any independent thought. Truth seekers my arse....
squeegee said:fuck you. that was a side note. they didn't investigate in the open discussion. they came to the discussion and said there was nothing worth investigating. i'm well aware of that. and that's not good enough for me and smakcs of a cover-up.
leave off with the insults and try using your reasoning powers. my point stands. end of.
goalposts
Well aware of it? You're a hopeless liar. Aside from trying to wheedle out on a technicality about 'open discussion,' how can you be 'well aware' that the subject had been investigated and detailed in the 911 Commission official report when you've made this claim in this very thread just a few posts before:
squeegee said:
So, with that in mind, I'll quite happily reiterate and add to the insults; fuck off and swallow some more unsourced nonsense like the soft-minded gullible patsy you are. You're more hinderance in the search for the truth of 911 than help. And I don't see why I should treat you with any respect or civility when your lack of research, stupidly thought out claims and downright lies are here for us all to read.
You're a liar, plain and simple. And every bit more obsessed and less trustworthy than the official figures you constantly seem to lampoon.
WouldBe said:
It's neither.
Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries
Samples came from commemorative statues made from WTC Steel!
detective-boy said:
You for a start.
I don't wish to censor anybody, never have done, don't know what you're going on about.
And nor have i claimed to be in favour of HR and CL. As it happens i see it as a human's inalienable right to have liberty, but stop putting words into my mouth.
fela fan said:
And also reflects on the tone of others who are bolstered by such abuse, to dish out abuse themselves.
Tarannau and whoever the other one was, i couldn't give a fuck about gore vidal, holographic planes, the 911 commission or whatever other shit you post. you ask for references i give you what i need to glean from it.
if you are satisfied to have your theories affirmed by legal people and mainstream journalists, be my guest.
whether it was the 911 commission cover-up (which enough of the families of the bereaved are insisting – or are you gonna tell me that George Bush says that's boloney, so that's that done with?) or whether it was any other number of conspiracy theories, the point is i don't trust the government or journalists to do their job, because the ruthless ones are not being challenged.
we know iraq was a bullshit war, total lies, we actually could see tony blair lying. and the front he had was incredible and the way the liberal media lapped it up was sickening.
you officialoons don't get it. you think you're protecting some noble ideal but you're protecting the government and their liars. i don't doubt that you're unaware of it, because i'm sure that many conspiracy-busters are from the left of the political spectrum i imagine so wouldn't do it intentiunally
but blair and his gimps can point to those on the left who shout conspiracy and say, you see they're the reasonable left. i can deal with them. i've been lying to them all my political life. i'm pretty good at it. and you know what? they are still buying it.
but blair wouldn't stand a chance if you start from the premise that he is just a front for the four or five multi-national companies and the handful of banks that make the geo-political decisions that inevitably always go haywire cos they have to deal with people who won't take the bullshit any longer and say
enough
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Jazzz said:
Ah yes, prisonplanet again.
Funny how you're prepared to accept cod science from idiots, but you haven't understood the fact that a plane was recently diverted - on account of a phone ringing - after all that scientific "evidence" you dredged from similarly dubious sources that claimed that the phone calls to the aircraft on 9/11 were impossible.
You are a gullible idiot with no idea of how radio waves work - incidentally radio communications technology has been a major aspect of my 17 year career.
I don't buy "prisonplanet" and their version of science, sorry, and I don't buy your latest non story.
squeegee said:
In 99 times out of a hundred squeegee, or maybe even 100 times, those who resort to abuse have nothing of substance to contribute to the debate at hand. Quite often it's because they've been presented with an argument they know is right, but can't admit, or even more often they don't want to prick the self-delusion they've succumbed to.
Also, britons in particular get quite a kick out of bullying and ritual humiliation. The desire to humiliate those who stray from the group's line of thinking is ingrained.
One time i actually posted up a whole list of terms that these abusive posters have used to describe anyone who believes it was more than incompetence behind the 911 attacks. It runs to its own lexis!!
You missed out:beesonthewhatnow said:
"Poster whinges about censorship / stifled debate / "sheeple""
And you used the phrase "further evidence" ... "some evidence" surely?
But, if such involvement did turn out to be true, would you characterise it as "the State" being involved or "an individual / small group of out-of-control lunatics who happened to be in State employ"?Bernie Gunther said:
Classic!squeegee said:
You wouldn't know "evidence" if it stood up and slapped you.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
