PSSSSSST....BZZZZZZZZT........... ([info]tazerfloyd) wrote in [info]debate,
@ 2003-05-16 19:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
FACT: the U.S. gov't allowed 9/11 to happen!
Now, I know this may be very difficult for a lot of you to accept, but it is indeed true that:

The attacks on 9/11 came as no surprise to the Bush administration, as it is through their leadership of the Federal government that they were intentionally allowed to happen. There is much evidence, which I will present below, that suggests that they were given specific warnings; the military response was delibrately inadequate; people inside the US and other Western nations attempted to profit of this event with stock market speculative transactions in the weeks before 9/11; The Bush Administration had plans to invade Afghanistan before 9/11; Western Intelligence Agencies aided and abetted the terrorists; FBI investigations into the plots were halted by high level officials and that there were opportunities to arrest Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

All of this information is documented with major media sources, the compliations of which I will post below. If you want to debate this subject, you should have read these documents so that you may refute them. Weakly argued emotional responses will be mocked. Let's have a civilized debate, where people argue based on facts, not emotional affiliations.

This is an event that is historically mirorred by the burning of the Reichstag, which allowed Hitler to rise up as the Dictator that history knows him to be.

Now, here is the information, through which you will see, that the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen, and used the event as an opportunity to further their agendas, foreign and domestic.

http://www.standdown.net/

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_navbar.htm

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page1&2.htm

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

"In the beginning of a change,
the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned.
When his cause succeeds however,
the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Mark Twain


Enjoy this vitally important information, and tell whoever you can about it. I am willing to debate anyone who wishes to argue against these facts.



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]julianbashir
2003-05-16 04:06 pm UTC (link)
This is quite shocking. The arrogance of this administration angers me.

Thanks for sharing this.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:
[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-16 04:19 pm UTC (link)
Spread the wisdom! The kicker of the whole thing is when it came to the so-called "Independent investigation" they appointed Henry Kissenger, a man who is wanted by several tribuals for war crimes relating to Chile. I guess they needed a proven liar.

Then after a little public outrage and when Henry learned he would have to disclose his consulting company's clients, he resigned. Then they appointed some former NJ governer to do it, who's probably just as good a liar, just not as notorious for it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]coryg
2003-05-16 04:06 pm UTC (link)
This is important information! But who do we tell? Certainly we can't share this with a government agency! Maybe we can spread it via a grass roots method such as the Internet or bumper stickers!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]julianbashir
2003-05-16 04:12 pm UTC (link)
You can design and print the bumper stickers and I'll walk around downtown and hand them out. :p

[what happened to all the emoticons?]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]coryg, 2003-05-16 04:14 pm UTC

[info]writtenout
2003-05-16 04:34 pm UTC (link)
I find this too easy to believe. ... No I don't.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:
[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-16 04:49 pm UTC (link)
It's a tough one to swallow, but if you do the reading, and see how all of this staggering detail of deception just wipes the official version out, it's a reality that we must face.

I wish the world was beautiful too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]janusdoa, 2003-05-17 01:57 am UTC

[info]merlyn_magick
2003-05-16 04:46 pm UTC (link)
Nicely argued.

Here's an article that centers around Bush's actions on that day, maybe it will be useful to you because it has links to more of the mainstream papers' accounts of what happened in pertaining to Bush. If I can find some more, I'll send em along.

Hope it helps!

(Reply to this)


[info]whip_lash
2003-05-16 04:50 pm UTC (link)
I'll be honest. There's no way I'm going to read all that, and neither is anybody else. Those sites are Bush-hater paradises, and it would be a tremendous pain in the ass to verify that there's any credibility to them whatsoever.

If it's true, it's disgusting but hardly unprecedented. GWB would be following in the proud footsteps of FDR, who let Pearl Harbor be bombed so that he could galvanize an unwilling American public into ridding the world of a genuine menace. Today, FDR is remembered as a great man for that. I wouldn't bet that GWB would be remembered similarly, but I wouldn't bet against it, either.

If you can prove it, great. Send it to your Congressman and ask for an impeachment. I wish you the best of luck.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]debergerac
2003-05-16 08:12 pm UTC (link)
those "major media" sources certainly get a lot of mileage out of the reichstag, don't they ??

i'm just asking, cuz i agree with you, there's no way i'd waste my time reading through all that conspiracy crappe ..

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]kamuela, 2003-05-16 08:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 08:47 am UTC
Re: - [info]kamuela, 2003-05-18 12:07 pm UTC
Re: - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 12:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]coolstring, 2003-05-18 03:13 pm UTC

[info]skaloop
2003-05-16 04:51 pm UTC (link)
No way would any President, especially a Bush, do anything like you are accusing. I will address your points one by one.

First of all, I think telling the military to stand down is in fact evidence that they did not know anything about it. I mean, they would have known that people like you would get the information, so why draw attention? Maintaining the status quo would have been the wise choice if they knew it was going to happen.

Stock market speculation and transactions happen every single day. I would not be surprised if this is mere coincidence. Also, what exactly was the stock market situation back then? I forget, but there could be simple and obvious reasons for any great changes in trading.

Afghanistan, as far as I can remember, was always a partial threat to the US. Not a major one, but there. Of course the government had plans in place to deal with them. They probably have plans in place for every possible contingency. A plan for Canada, a plan for Mexico, a plan for Iraq. It's all in place already.

I don't know about WIA aiding and abetting the terrorists, but is the WIA a United States federal body? If not, then what they do is not a reflection on the US.

FBI investigations were halted by senior officials? What is this, X-Files? Is Osama an alien?

There are opportunites to arrest anyone, right now. However, there's that little thing about not being able to arrest anyone until they actually do something.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 05:53 am UTC (link)
"First of all, I think telling the military to stand down is in fact evidence that they did not know anything about it. I mean, they would have known that people like you would get the information, so why draw attention? Maintaining the status quo would have been the wise choice if they knew it was going to happen."

The Status Quo is that as soon as flight controllers lose radio contact with airliners, they are required to notify NORAD, which then takes the task of sending fighter jets to intercept the aircraft to see if they can make visual contact with the pilot and or see if it has been hijacked. A typical response time would be 20 minutes. On 9/11 there were dozens of Air Force Bases in range of Washington. no explanation has been given as to why fighters were not dispatch, and subsequently, no reprimands were given for this historic failure.

"Stock market speculation and transactions happen every single day. I would not be surprised if this is mere coincidence. Also, what exactly was the stock market situation back then? I forget, but there could be simple and obvious reasons for any great changes in trading."

from: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

50. Sept. 6-7, 2001 - Put options (a speculation that the stock will go down) totaling 4,744 are purchased on United Air Lines stock, as opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up). This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options. Many of the United puts are purchased through Deutschebank/A.B. Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current executive director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. [Source: The Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), http://www.ict.org.il/, Sept. 21, 2001 (Note:The ICT article on possible terrorist insider trading appeared eight days *after* the 9/11 attacks.); The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal; The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 29, 2001]

The simple and obvious reason is that certain individuals knew that the stock would be going down, and wanted to profit off of it. Pretty simple, eh?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 05:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-19 09:43 am UTC
Re: - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-19 09:54 am UTC

[info]lowapproach
2003-05-16 05:18 pm UTC (link)
Can you break out the specific references within those websites? That's a lot of text to scroll through.

Admittedly, I'm skeptical, but I'll review anyone's references if willing to provide them.

(Reply to this)

and more...
[info]joiseyguy
2003-05-16 05:24 pm UTC (link)
http://www.911pi.com/

http://www.911timeline.net

http://www.911commission.gov

Even if anything found on these sites is true I have little faith in believing that anyone will ever know the truth or that anything will ever be proved. It's been 40 years and most of the world and the history books still believe that there was no conspiracy and that there was only 1 gun fired in Dallas on November 22, 1963. If the truth of what happened then has still not seen the light of day how is the truth of what happened on 9/11/2001 ever going to be known?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: and more...
[info]notmrgarrison
2003-05-16 06:38 pm UTC (link)
We'll just have to wait for Oliver Stone to make a movie about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: and more... - [info]coryg, 2003-05-16 09:42 pm UTC
Re: and more... - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-16 10:13 pm UTC
Re: and more... - [info]coryg, 2003-05-17 12:20 am UTC
Re: and more... - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-17 12:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ghostlight, 2003-05-17 01:11 am UTC
Re: - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-17 01:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ghostlight, 2003-05-17 01:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 06:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 08:56 am UTC
Re: - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-19 09:07 am UTC
Re: - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-19 10:48 am UTC
Re: - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-19 11:44 am UTC
Re: - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-19 12:51 pm UTC
Re: - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-19 04:04 pm UTC

[info]jf5171
2003-05-16 05:30 pm UTC (link)

several points:

1) the same United States government that doesn't allow Marines guarding embassies (both before and after the Lebanese Embassy bombing in 83)to carry loaded weapons (we wouldn't want to shoot anyone) does not keep alert 5 planes ready in CONUS. AKA: on full alert.

2) Not knowing that the planes were going to be used as missiles, why would the Air Force scramble armed fighters to shoot them down? There is no consistent history of hijacked airplanes getting military escorts, as this would tend to inflame the situation in the air.

3) FDR was assistant Secretary of hte Navy in WW1 and was a firm "battleship" man.Ironically, so was Yamamoto, who planned Pearl Harbor... and Midway. Carriers were a novelty, foisted on most between-war -navies. It was luck more than anything that they became the preeminent battlewagons of WW2. To assert that the Government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen is strictly a conspiracy theory that looks good because of all the evidence, and the hindsight available now. Put yourself in the situation back then, and you see it was one humungous cluster fuck... as was 9/11.

It's always fun to hatch conspiracy theories and doctor evidence to support them, but nobody takes those things seriously, except at gunshows, and, apparently, democrat rallies and retreats.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]merlyn_magick
2003-05-17 05:59 am UTC (link)
In addition to the thousands of other places it has been published, my answers are taken from this Source - 911 Commission.gov


1) on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian". This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."

2) Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.

These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason--with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

3) Umm, off topic (for me anyway), so I'm not going to touch it.

Read that article, as it is from the Government sanctioned 9\11 commission, especially the part about the timing of the attacks and NORAD's\FAA's response time to them. Does it prove a conspiracy theory? No - but it does point to some rather suspicious activity (or lack thereof), so it's a place to start. Combine that with the fact that not a single person has been charged for any failure on what is arguably the single greatest loss of civilian life in a foreign attack on our country, and you've got to admit something is not right with this picture.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jf5171, 2003-05-17 08:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 06:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jf5171, 2003-05-17 08:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 09:16 am UTC
Fun with the first site :
[info]notmrgarrison
2003-05-16 06:36 pm UTC (link)
Also, is the place to be in the air when there are still a couple of thousand airliners in the air deviating from their normal flight plans to land, and who knew then how many of them were hostile or not?


If one thinks about it, yes.
Crashing an airplane into a staionary ground target is a two-dimensional problem, crashing a plane into another moving plane in the air is a four dimensional problem.


While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.


The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.


These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data tends to lend credence to the theory that perhaps a massive explosion(s) in the lowest level of the basements where the supporting steel columns of the WTC met the bedrock caused the collapses


Who determined that the spikes occurred at the beggining of the collapses? (it magicalkly doesn't say)

Where there additional spikes when the building did hit the ground? (it doesn't say)

No one heard these explosions?

Did they ever see the video of the building collapsing from the top down?



And where are the major media sources?
I could say aliens abducted congess flying out of National Airporton on a 737, and link to a boeing.com pdf showing the seating capacity of the plane and link to a cnn.com article showing that members of congress often use national airport, but that really doesn't count as "All of this information is documented with major media sources".

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 06:21 am UTC (link)
go to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

this is a site constructed of entirely major media sources.

It lays out every detail that was published leading up to and after the attacks. By reading all these details, you will get a better idea of how the attacks came to be.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 07:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]notmrgarrison, 2003-05-17 08:18 am UTC
Re: - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 08:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 08:30 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 06:28 am UTC (link)
What's so funny?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)
Re: - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 07:31 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 09:22 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
Re: - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 10:18 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
Re: - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 11:18 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
Re: - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 12:00 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
Re: - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 12:23 pm UTC

[info]freedomxfries_
2003-05-16 07:37 pm UTC (link)
that's VERY interesting, it reminds me a lot of Pearl Harbor and Roosevelt.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-16 09:24 pm UTC (link)
Exactly, and look at how long it took us to find out about that. But this time, thanks to the internet, the evidence is there at a click.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lowapproach, 2003-05-17 04:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 06:22 am UTC

[info]kamuela
2003-05-16 08:29 pm UTC (link)
Anyone using "Whatreallyhappened.com" as a source of legitimate and accurate information needs to permanently forward all of his mail to FantasyLand and then do the rest of the world a favor by eating a shotgun.

a) Loosely linking together unrelated incidents to manufacture a conspiracy theory is the oldest waste of time in history.

b) Just because something is "alternative" to mainstream accounts does not make it true.

c) You're a fucking idiot.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 06:27 am UTC (link)
A) This theory is much more comprehensively documented than the official version of events. If you can prove the official version to me, and allow me to debate your points, then go ahead, otherwise, this is not a debate, it's just you trying to believe what you want to believe.

B) Just because something's repeated again and again by the corporate media doesn't make it true. What makes things true is proof, evidence, facts. May I ask what you believe and what facts you have to support it?

c) I find it quite funny that you find simplistic insults such as this to be a valid form of debate. If you're going to make such an assertion, you had better first prove why what you believe is more correct, which you have not done.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: - [info]kamuela, 2003-05-17 07:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 07:48 am UTC
Re: - [info]kamuela, 2003-05-17 07:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 09:45 am UTC
Re: - [info]kamuela, 2003-05-18 12:03 pm UTC
Re: - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-18 01:04 pm UTC
Re: - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-18 12:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ericthemage, 2003-05-17 01:04 pm UTC
Re: - [info]kamuela, 2003-05-17 07:04 pm UTC

[info]happygilmore
2003-05-16 09:01 pm UTC (link)
Let me guess, you also think that the moon landing was fake too?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jf5171
2003-05-16 09:12 pm UTC (link)

Is he a "flat-earther" too?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]notmrgarrison, 2003-05-16 10:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-17 01:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]notmrgarrison, 2003-05-17 03:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 06:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]somnambulisa, 2003-05-17 01:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 06:30 am UTC
Re: - [info]happygilmore, 2003-05-17 10:37 am UTC
Re: - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 11:02 am UTC

[info]weswilson
2003-05-16 09:07 pm UTC (link)
It's fun to think this way! WHEEEEEE!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 06:52 am UTC (link)
Do you care to present and debate another position?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page1&2.htm
[info]lowapproach
2003-05-16 09:13 pm UTC (link)
This seemed like the swiftest read of the lot, which may be unfair to the others for being a little more deliberative and thorough-going in their approach. Nonetheless, if all of them are equally credible...umm, yeah. This deals with "Why Were None of the Hijacked Aircraft Intercepted?", http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon.

Well, thirteen miles, if you use Yahoo! Maps. Close enough for government work, as the expression goes.

On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter took off (or scrambled) to protect the city.

All of our national assumptions regarding air defense involve aircraft originating from outside the continental United States, being detected by chains of radar installations strung across our borders and some even outside them, as with the installations we built during the Cold War to detect inbound Soviet bombers. This is a necessity in a country with more airplanes than the rest of the world combined, where significant numbers of general-aviation aircraft like the Cessna 172 fly in vast stretches of Class G uncontrolled airspace, thirty miles or more from major airports. Since the end of the Cold War, when the first President Bush stood down the B-52/B-1 alert mission for a nuclear response, we hadn't had a need until the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks to maintain combat air patrols, or CAPs, over anywhere in the continental United States because these fighters were never intended to shoot down hijacked airliners.

An air traffic controller seeing an airplane deviating from course would first attempt to contact the airplane, setting it back on course by issuing a vector, a magnetic heading to fly. Failing to reach the aircraft, he would transmit again to the airplane, requesting that it either respond or ident to acknowledge receipt of transmission, a feature of the transponder which causes the secondary radar interrogator to show a bloom on the dot or triangle overlying the primary radar target. This could take several seconds if the air traffic controller were preoccupied with other aircraft, and if the airplane continued to be unresponsive, deviating back in the direction of New York City, the controller's default assumption would never have been, "Oh, I know - he's about to slam it into a building." The controller would have alerted the controller responsible for the sector governing the airports nearest the airplane, as an unresponsive aircraft deviating from its course for potential emergency landing. If this aircraft, traveling at anywhere between four to six miles per minute, were within twenty miles of its intended target, no air traffic controller could possibly have made a call in time to save the World Trade Center, and no fighter could have shot one down without killing everyone aboard and maybe hundreds more below as the airplane broke apart.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page1&2.htm, continued
[info]lowapproach
2003-05-16 09:20 pm UTC (link)
It would not be completely improbable to underestimate the extent of the operation until after the second one hit, because everyone - including the hijackers - died on impact. Most of our security measures throughout the country, and not just airports, rely on death or the strong possibility of arrest as deterrents; if you find a motivated and trained someone who cares about neither of those things, he or she can do tremendous damage just by ignoring control measures that would stop someone who places escape and survival above mission completion. It was also the first time in aviation history where hijackers took a civil passenger aircraft hostage for the purpose of ramming it into something. Even if it had squawked 7500 and the pilots had used the radio phraseology "trip" or "flaps full down", the air traffic controllers would have let it go where it would, and offered every assistance to military and law enforcement agencies while doing nothing to jeopardize the lives of the passengers on board [FAA Order 7110.65N, Air Traffic Control, 10-2-6, Hijacked Aircraft; FAA Order 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Chapter 7, Escort of Hijacked Aircraft. See http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/INDEX.HTM for .pdfs of both regulations].

Bottom line: even today, after NOBLE EAGLE [the Pentagon operation wherein we taxed the air defense commands sorely to provide 24-hour coverage of all major metropolitan areas by AWACS/GCI/F-15/F-16s], we still don't employ a shoot-first response to hijack scenarios. When I went to Saudi Arabia, I worked in the same squadron as the man who did the initial development of an air defense network of Patriot batteries inside the city of Washington, D.C. - scrapped because the reaction time would be so minimal as to reduce the decision-making level to the private first class pushing the button, and because the possibility for error is so enormous.

Credit the terrorists, if you want, for finding a hole in our rational assumptions about the realism of a suicidal hijacker at the controls of a commercial jet. But don't blame air traffic control, air defense commands and the National Command Authority for failure to anticipate the unprecedented and dimly imagined.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page1&2.htm, continued - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 06:51 am UTC
Re: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page1&2.htm, continued - [info]lowapproach, 2003-05-17 07:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 08:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lowapproach, 2003-05-17 09:35 am UTC
However, It's Been Seen and Heard Worldwide:
[info]scripty
2003-05-16 09:19 pm UTC (link)


Despite the validity, lack of validity arguments involved with this information, no one can deny the odd and strangely incriminating comment by Bush following the events of 09/11, shared with and laughed at by Republicans as they rallied in their finances:

Bush said, regarding the events of 09/11:

"I hit the Trifecta."

Not that he was sadly or horribly benefitted by the deaths and terrible destruction of that day, those events, but that "(he) hit the Trifecta."

I'm not sure which is more incriminating: that he made that admission, or that his audience of supporters found it laughable.

Either way, it's well believed and now supportable that Bush and Administration had foreknowledge of the events of 09/11, and failed to act, or, withheld action, or, whatever; however, it all equals "facilitated and profited by" the events.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 06:56 am UTC (link)
Yeah. And nobody can deny that Bush failed miserably as Commander-in-chief when he proceeded to listen to a little girl read about her pet goat for 20 minutes, when he KNEW the U.S. was under attack, and the fact that he claimed to see the first impact on TV when in fact there was no footage of it until later.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/schoolvideo.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]yakkette
2003-05-16 09:33 pm UTC (link)
I actually agree with you, and have been aware of this information for some time, but sadly most of the sites you link do come across as crazy conspiracy-theory wacko sites. Unfortunately, not a lot of sane people tend to consider that the goverment is this openly malvolent.

Some of the most incriminating evidence I've seen comes from a newcast that was shown live on 9/11 but never since then of the moment right before the first tower collapsed. The camera is centered on the tower, but to the right of the tower (about a block away) there's a clear explosion and smoke rises out of this area, then 2 seconds later the first tower comes down. I imagine that this all happened so fast that the people present during the event wouldn't have had time to notice or seperate the two events, but it's stunningly clear on the video tape.

There's a lot of unanswered questions regarding 9/11. Most people think I'm nuts for suggesting that the plane that crashed over rural pennsylvania was actually shot down, despite overwhelming evidence from eyewitnesses that the plane blew up in midair. Under the circumstances, I'd have no problem with the military shooting down a plane that was on its' way to crash into buildings- but why they are lying to us about it makes me wonder what else they're lying about.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 07:03 am UTC (link)
If these sites can prove their assertions in a similar manner that an academic would in an essay or a lawyer would in a trial, with references which are proveable and credible, and do this better than those who present opposing assertions, then i'm willing to read and believe them.

It's necessary to shed our pre-conceptions before looking at such documents, and follow the conculsions that the evidence leads us to. That is how truth is uncovered.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]back2dafront, 2003-05-20 11:08 am UTC

[info]yvonne_b
2003-05-16 10:03 pm UTC (link)
yeah, i've heard/read about this before, too.

btw, can i save this post as a memory? you and the other posters posted some great links on here and i'd like to save it, that's all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:
[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 05:33 am UTC (link)
You can add it as your memory if you'd like. That's possible.

None the less, i have.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

*YAWN*
[info]tbonestg
2003-05-16 10:27 pm UTC (link)
Fucking Christ. Are you conspiracy nuts just trying to wear the rest of us down by posting 9/11 "Bush knew" conspiracies until the rest of us give up and accept that you're right?

It was BS on Sept 12, it's BS today and it's going to be BS tomorrow.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: *YAWN*
[info]joiseyguy
2003-05-17 12:45 am UTC (link)
Is it that difficult in the age and year we live in to have an open mind about current events? Does your side deny the existence of any and all conspiracies and conspiracy theories throughout history? Did Bush ever drive a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or was that just a campaign smear? Did Clinton get a blow job from a Jewish woman on Easter Sunday in the White House or was that just a Penthouse letter? Was the Watergate burglary and Nixon's cover-up just a flashback from a bad acid trip? Negroes didn't have it that bad in the South too eh? Did Hitler not order the mass murder of 6 million Jews? I can just hear your types back in the 40's: "*YAWN* Fucking Christ...there are NO concentration camps and Hitler isn't killing anyone..."
YES...some of the claims are bullshit and some of the web sites look totally whacked while some look very organized and believable. Other points though have been indisputably recorded and noted such as the 'trifecta' quote. The only way to sift through the bullshit and separate fact from fiction is to keep an open mind and have intelligent, mature conversations and research everything until the cows come home.
The alternative of stamping your foot, covering your ears with both hands and shouting "na-nah-na-nah-nana..I can't hear you...na-nah-na-nah-nana...it's all bullshit...mommymakeitallbettterplease" is something I'd rather not do.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: *YAWN* - [info]lowapproach, 2003-05-17 03:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 07:10 am UTC
Re: *YAWN* - [info]kamuela, 2003-05-17 03:35 am UTC
Re: *YAWN* - [info]joiseyguy, 2003-05-17 11:25 am UTC
Re: *YAWN* - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-17 02:50 pm UTC
Re: *YAWN* - [info]kamuela, 2003-05-17 07:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tazerfloyd, 2003-05-17 07:06 am UTC
Re: - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-17 02:28 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 07:17 am UTC (link)
"However, to argue that "because they benefited from it they must have known about it in advance" is false reasoning."

Yes, that would be false reasoning, however, I did not make that assertion.

My assertion is that because of the numerous documented occurances foreign intelligence sources which SPECIFICALLY warned American intelligence about what was going to happen, they must have known about it in advance.

This is backed up by the information on this page:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/foreignwarnings.html

Check it out.

As for conspiracy theories being too complex, this is a valid point, however, there is a way in which operations of such complexity can be executed, but that's a whole other level of debate which I will bring to the table in a few days, which is the next level of the whole 'conspiracy' stuff.

Now as for the incompetence theory, please show me who was blamed for this incompetence, and how this incompetence came to be, defying all standard procedures.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]janusdoa
2003-05-17 01:47 am UTC (link)
Oh, of course. Because everything in the internet is true. :-)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tazerfloyd
2003-05-17 07:21 am UTC (link)
No, everything on the internet is neither true or untrue, as it is merely a vessel for people to write whatever they want.

I only believe it once it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the assertions that are being made have validity. This criteria which i follow is similar to that which is followed by academics and those in the legal profession.

Do you believe that everything you read in the mainstream media is true?

I'd argue that the information that is presented in the mainstream media is much less documented and proveable than the information which I have listed in this debate.

I'm sorry, but if you want to make fun of me for using internet sources, you're going to have to be able to prove that what you believe based on major media sources is more valid. So please, go ahead.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]janusdoa, 2003-05-17 10:40 pm UTC

[info]janusdoa
2003-05-17 01:58 am UTC (link)
WOW!

And I can tell you how to make $5000 a week from home while increasing your penis size by 1-3 inches!!!

(Reply to this)

Hi
[info]shelliestar81
2003-05-17 03:58 am UTC (link)
Glad to see more people not for the war. My second to last post reveals some of how I feel on this subject.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Hi
[info]tbonestg
2003-05-19 09:48 am UTC (link)
So you've converted to Islam and want to live under Sharia law?

I highly doubt it, as if you had, you'd know your place, woman.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Hi - [info]shelliestar81, 2003-05-20 01:37 am UTC
Re: Hi - [info]tbonestg, 2003-05-20 05:41 pm UTC

[info]skaloop
2003-05-17 07:32 am UTC (link)
You have asked throughout this if we think that the government doesn't lie to us. And of course, I doubt anyone truly thinks that. They lie all the time.

Anyway, assuming for a moment that all of your assertions are correct, I just have to say so what? Now, you are not saying that Bush actually planned the attacks, right? Well, then, what is wrong with maing the best of a bad situation. If he knew attacks were coming (although he probably didn't know when, or where) then why not make some changes to his stock portfolio. Any sane person would.

And after the fact, of course any half-decent politician would try to turn this event (any event) to his favour. The fact that Bush did this has no relevance to whether he was in on it.

OK, so Bush let it happen. Big deal. I would like to know how you, had you been in the same situation, would have handled it. How would you have stopped the attacks on the WTC? How would you have reacted afterwards?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tbonestg
2003-05-19 09:52 am UTC (link)
And after the fact, of course any half-decent politician would try to turn this event (any event) to his favour.

Everyone's favorite humanitarian, Jimmy Carter seemed to botch turning the Iran hostage crisis in his favor.

Yeah, I know it put his numbers up initially but still...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…