Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
Citizen66 said:
It's gone unchallenged for nearly three years, and it's the kind of evidence that would be rapidly questioned if there was anything suspect about it, given who OBL is.
You asked:
Citizen66 said:
And you got it. But you're still not satisfied. Well not much I can do about that.
Do be quiet Jo please.
Loki, from your credible source:
So it seems that this has been 'accidently' stumbled upon and was not an official video given to al-Jazeera claiming responsibility. The article also goes on to say:
From the link you provided regarding this:
Now can I please have some real evidence that OBL was linked to the Hijackers please instead of some video which I'm yet to see that was apparently 'circulating'.
He made no less than four official videos denying involvement.
Loki, from your credible source:
So it seems that this has been 'accidently' stumbled upon and was not an official video given to al-Jazeera claiming responsibility. The article also goes on to say:
From the link you provided regarding this:
redsquirrel said:
Now can I please have some real evidence that OBL was linked to the Hijackers please instead of some video which I'm yet to see that was apparently 'circulating'.
He made no less than four official videos denying involvement.
Loki said:
So what about the four official videos where he denies involvement?
What would be the point in publicly denying something whilst secretly issuing videos admitting it? I don't think he's silly, mate.
Anyway, we were talking about evidence that he was linked to the hijackers and not some video of unknown source where he admits responsibility.
Loki said:
Yeah, and those evil red Indians will eat your kids if they get the chance so we'll suppress them and kill them as much as possible and grab their land in the process.
It's all happened before all of this Loki mate. To understand the US's political present and future, you need do no more than have a brief look at their past.
Loki said:
So you know all about the propaganda surrounding the red Indians and the subsequent land grabbing that ensued then? Good.
It's remarkably similar to today's aggressive occupation for oil (Iraq) and land grabs for oil pipelines (Afghanistan), wouldn't you agree?
Or is just an unfortunate coincidence?
I don't disagree with a lot of that, mate.Citizen66 said:
But I still adamantly believe the US was subjected to a carefully orchestrated, surprise attack by suicidal terrorists. And Bush / Rumsfeld et al then played it to their advantage to fulfill their desire to invade a few countries subsequently.
Loki said:
they've done more than that though, many laws have been introduced worldwide since 9/11 that take away a lot of peoples rights.
they've gained a lot on many fronts, and as has been pointed out, if the us wants to invade a country, they basicly go ahead and do it anyway whether they have an excuse or not.
however, introducing some of the laws that have been passed since 9/11 would require some sort of justification, homeland security in the wake of the wtc attacks being that.
Loki said:
That's pretty much where I'm at on the subject too. But I wouldn't at all find it surprising if they let the attacks be greater than they needed to be just to instill enough fear into the hearts and minds of the American people to get their full unconditional backing on the 'war on terror', that seems to be working out quite well financially for them with no actual terrorist organisations being destroyed. Which then starts me thinking again that both Al-Quada and WMD were just smokescreens for a far more sinister operation...
Jo/Joe said:
Can you ever manage to spew out anything more than a sentence?
I really don't see what there is to substantiate about my thought process regarding 9/11 oh unimaginative one. I described my own personal feelings and what led me to think that al-Quada was just a smokescreen. Hey, I'm allowed to think this way as much as you're allowed to express your schoolboy jargon in my direction, eh?
As opposed to your passive aggressive posts?
And since when did quantity mean anything? Pretty much all the conspiracy theorists here can whack out paragraphs without actually answering the questions asked of them, and yes the onus is on them to provide evidence for what are outlandish theories. I'd prefer substance, even if it were contained in a few words. Batting mindless ideas back and forth, with nothing real to support them, is fucking easy and a waste of time.
And since when did quantity mean anything? Pretty much all the conspiracy theorists here can whack out paragraphs without actually answering the questions asked of them, and yes the onus is on them to provide evidence for what are outlandish theories. I'd prefer substance, even if it were contained in a few words. Batting mindless ideas back and forth, with nothing real to support them, is fucking easy and a waste of time.
Citizen66 said:Name once when I've used a site like Joe Vialls' to give credence to my arguments
Of course, none of the Usual Suspects can do that Citizen, but they certainly wont let that stop them from trying to discredit you.
Incidentally, the fact the Usual Suspects are reduced to employing these cynical and logically fraudulent methods is a sure sign that they're losing the arguement hands down and are actually desperate people. That's why all of the recent 9/11 threads have been "dissapeared".
Here on Urban 75—that bastion of "alternative" media where 'free speech' and 'democracy' reign supreme—you can debate absolutely any subject you want to... EXCEPT 9/11.
editor
hiraethified
No they haven't.bigfish said:
The 9/11 threads containing the repititive bleats of the same obsessed people repeating the same thing over and over again are sitting in the bin and have been accessible to everyone for a very long time indeed. Heck, one's even surivived the necessary post culls and has been kept online since April 2003!
So 9/11 threads aren't disappearing. You're talking utter bollocks as usual.
Only a completely deluded fruitloop could ever conclude that 9/11 conspiracies haven't been massively and endlessly 'debated' on urban75.bigfish said:
How many posts do you think you've been allowed to make on your pet topic? 100? 500? 1,000?
I'd say that you've been given ample opportunity to state your case.
The only trouble is that you - and a few other obsessed individuals - seem to mistake endless repetition of the same tedious, evidence untroubled, credibility-unhindered theories with 'debate'.
PS urban75 is not a 'democracy' neither does it make any claims of 'free speech'. The FAQ/info pages make that quite clear.
So why are you making that nonsense up?
Jo/Joe said:
If people could debate the points I've raised regarding planes leaving flight paths and how the military deals with those type situations instead of asking me to substantiate my 'claims' whilst offering an irrelevant link to a video that goes nowhere close to proving that OBL had links to the hijackers, then perhaps I'd tone down the condesending tone Jo, mate.
Regarding the failure of US jets to follow strict protocol there are 3 options which none of us can prove:
1. It was deliberate so that the planes could be flown into their targets.
2. Whatever the commision reported.
3. A cover up of incompetence in the chain of command that should have seen those jets in action quicker.
We don't know do we?
1. It was deliberate so that the planes could be flown into their targets.
2. Whatever the commision reported.
3. A cover up of incompetence in the chain of command that should have seen those jets in action quicker.
We don't know do we?
There's 2 names against an option saying that 1 person has voted and 9 names against an option that says 8 people have voted. 
Well no, we don't. But what we do know is that the outcome of their failure to protect their airspace and the subsequent 'war on terror', is that there's a brand new oil pipeline running through Afghanistan and an Occupation of a (formerly) sovereign country and their dirty little mits have got hold of on one of the largest oil reserves in the world.
A pretty convenient failure, would you agree?
Jo/Joe said:
Well no, we don't. But what we do know is that the outcome of their failure to protect their airspace and the subsequent 'war on terror', is that there's a brand new oil pipeline running through Afghanistan and an Occupation of a (formerly) sovereign country and their dirty little mits have got hold of on one of the largest oil reserves in the world.
A pretty convenient failure, would you agree?
Similar threads
