Well, that certainly proves she thinks 9/11 was a false flag operation, well done Jazzz
She has described the official version of events as 'a lie'.
What part of 'lie' are you having trouble understanding? The 'L'? The 'I'? The 'E'?
Cynthia McKinney, Monday 8th March
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
She has described the official version of events as 'a lie'.
What part of 'lie' are you having trouble understanding? The 'L'? The 'I'? The 'E'?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Saying the official version of events is a lie, and saying that it was a false flag operation are two very, very different things you idiot.
If you guys are still having trouble determining the depth of McKinney's doubt over the official version of events, then watch her meeting with 'Splitting the Sky' as Mike Desantos kindly linked - go to where Splitting the Sky is unequivocal in describing 9/11 as an inside job - and look at her body language as she sits behind in his support
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It gets better! Sitting behind someone in support! 
Presumably if she'd disagreed she'd move in front of him? Desperate.
Presumably if she'd disagreed she'd move in front of him? Desperate.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
At what point in his rant does she appear as more than a head? Aside from her doing a pretty bog standard nodding dog thing in the style of a party political conference.
At no point does anyone discuss anything like evidence tho - it's a polemical rant that's pretty much ahistorical 'Things are bad, corporations are bad, the governments bad', aside from his personal anecdote.
At no point does anyone discuss anything like evidence tho - it's a polemical rant that's pretty much ahistorical 'Things are bad, corporations are bad, the governments bad', aside from his personal anecdote.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
More to the point - she's not even in the bloody shot when he calls 911 an 'inside job' - 4:30 onwards. She appears later nodding to an entirely different claim - that the US executive of the bush regime took power from congress. You fool. One short post and you fucked up two points
You're the joke. If she disagreed with Splitting the Sky there is no way she would sit behind him nodding away supporting him to the hilt. Of course, you didn't even watch the clip.It gets better! Sitting behind someone in support!
Presumably if she'd disagreed she'd move in front of him? Desperate.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
And a 3rd one! The hat-trick!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
So Jazz, presumably you've never sat and watched PMQs, or one of the party conferences, where X spod is standing at the podium and the delegates/MPs behind him are all in nodding dog mode, sagely agreeing with whatever the speaker is saying while not really listening to it? I mean the latter part would be hard with this guy since he seems to be addressing a crowd of 000s from the inside of a classroom...
And BA clearly watched the same thing I did, because she does indeed spend the majority of the clip out of shot.
And BA clearly watched the same thing I did, because she does indeed spend the majority of the clip out of shot.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Also, she's sitting to his right - not behind him. What's she covering up by sitting specifically there?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
She has described the official version of events as 'a lie'.
What part of 'lie' are you having trouble understanding? The 'L'? The 'I'? The 'E'?
Christ almighty
I used to think you did this stuff as a slippery debating tactic, I'm beginning to come round to the idea that you're just monumentally stupid.
This isn't PMQs or a party conference, where people do not choose who is speaking.
Splitting the Sky was being totally unsupported by the rest of the peace movement. They didn't want to know about him, because he was vocally insisting that 9/11 was an inside job.
However Cynthia McKinney has made a massive point of supporting him. It is completely her choice to do so.
the feeling is mutual
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Jazzz you claimed that this clip showed CM supporting the late great sky saxon's claim that 911 was an 'inside job' with her body language when he made that claim.
1) She wasn't in shot when he made that claim
2) She did indeed indicate considerable support via her body language for a point he made - that point though was that the US executive took away power from congress post 911, not that 911 was an 'inside job'.
I point this out and you, instead of saying oh yes, i was wrong, apols, you choose to simply ignore me. You're wandering into the territory of outright lying here. That's what continued defence of this body language claim amounts to now.
1) She wasn't in shot when he made that claim
2) She did indeed indicate considerable support via her body language for a point he made - that point though was that the US executive took away power from congress post 911, not that 911 was an 'inside job'.
I point this out and you, instead of saying oh yes, i was wrong, apols, you choose to simply ignore me. You're wandering into the territory of outright lying here. That's what continued defence of this body language claim amounts to now.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I suggest you see the wood and not endlessly fart about with the trees.
McKinney has gone to great lengths to associate with those proclaiming that 9/11 was an inside job. Indeed, as you can see with Splitting the Sky, rather than distancing herself from them, she quite literally embraces them. Now, you are asking the forum to believe that her views on 9/11 are rather like Badger Kitten and 7/7!
I have carefully pointed out to you that as the political face of the movement, it is not for her to say what happened on 9/11. However, everyone should now be able to see that when she denounces the official version of events as 'a lie', that includes its most fundamental aspects.
I am quietly amused at how, when it suits, you fools will happily use the most tenuous 'guilt by association' attacks (e.g. Icke and anti-semitism), reading in all kinds of stuff that is never there. But with Cynthia McKinney, you are contorting yourself into NOT reading anything which is not stated in the most explicit terms. Amazing!
fogbat
The Talibum
No, he isn't.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The lizards/jews thing isn't 'tenuous' it's pernicious, and old hat. Besides, Icke (and indeed yourself) have associated your names with a number of less that savoury characters, so it's hardly 'not there'.
However, since she hasn't actually come out and said directly that it was an inside job, one has to ask the question 'Why?' Since her primary audience is one of true believers anyway (and lets face it, the lines are pretty much drawn on this one in terms of conversion potential), where would be the harm in her actually saying it?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You are going to do it aren't you jazz! You really are! You're just going to pretend that what happened earlier today didn't take place? That your latest bizarre attempt to support your mind-reading was based on a claim that has been shown to be totally wrong, no not so much wrong asinvented. You won't even acknowledge that this happened. Where you think this utter dishonesty over such a small thing this leaves your relentless quest for the wider truth i don't know. The above is mere dissembling and sand-in-the-eyes waffling and issue avoidance.
Seek truth jazzz - even in China.
Seek truth jazzz - even in China.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Jazzz
Do you have a quote, youtube clip or similar where CM specifically states she suspects some degree of "inside job". I would be very interested to see it and am not trying to catch you out. I accept she may be over cautious in public statements, but nonetheless...
Do you have a quote, youtube clip or similar where CM specifically states she suspects some degree of "inside job". I would be very interested to see it and am not trying to catch you out. I accept she may be over cautious in public statements, but nonetheless...
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I'm not wasting my time. Not all the time I'm not watching bloody conspiranoid videos on prisonplanet because I've been told to.
If you feel you're wasting your time, well that's entirely up to you. And, as far as I know, my user account here isn't immune to the "ignore user" function, if my presence is troubling you that badly
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Actually, applying Occam's Razor here, I think it's far more likely that they didn't want to know about him because he's a liability, a grandiose self-publicist and liar, and associating with him, much like climbing out of the back of a sheep, is not the kind of thing you particularly want to be seen doing in public, for the embarrassment factor alone.
You seem to have been going to the same mind-reading classes as our friend Mike Desantos. I think you should both consider applying for a refund of the fees.
So, you don't think anyone should be distanced from on the basis that they declare 9/11 to be an inside job.
Interesting.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
You're doing that mind-reading thing again.
Wrongly. Show me where I said that people wouldn't want to be associated with this "skysplitter" idiot "on the basis that they declare 9/11 to be an inside job".
You can't. Because you made that bit up.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That would be twice this afternoon then - he's pretending that the other one didn't happen now by ignoring me.
post 294.
although you have your negatives muddled up. you mean 'wouldn't want to not be associated with...'
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
There's no depth too low to stoop to for you in making yourself right, is there?
Admittedly, needs must, in your case, but even so...
Similar threads
