TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 [95] 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Its because your arguments are beneath us, we're not here to debate you, we're here to mock and deride because that's all you deserve. Duh!

Yes 181 61.56%
No 113 38.44%

Check your head again troll. You are failing.....miserably.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Incredible the ignorance of you people....I guess you never bothered to read about operation Gladio. Cossiga knows better than billions of people on this planet of black ops. Gladio (Italian, from Latin gladius, meaning sword) is a code name denoting the clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operation in Italy after World War II, intended to counter an eventual Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organisations, Operation Gladio is used as an informal name for all stay-behind organisations. Operating in all of NATO[citation needed] and even in some neutral countries or in Spain before its 1982 adhesion to NATO, Gladio was first coordinated by the Clandestine Committee of the Western Union (CCWU), founded in 1948. After the creation of NATO in 1949, the CCWU was integrated into the Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC), founded in 1951 and overseen by the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), transferred to Belgium after France�s official withdrawal from NATO in 1966 � which was not followed by the dissolution of the French stay-behind paramilitary movements. According to historian Daniele Ganser, one of the major researchers on the field, "Next to the CPC, a second secret army command center, labeled the Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC), was set up in 1957 on the orders of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR). This military structure provided for significant US leverage over the secret stay-behind networks in Western Europe as the SACEUR, throughout NATO's history, has traditionally been a US General who reports to the Pentagon in Washington and is based in NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. The ACC's duties included elaborating on the directives of the network, developing its clandestine capability, and organizing bases in Britain and the United States. In wartime, it was to plan stay-behind operations in conjunction with SHAPE. According to former CIA director William Colby, it was 'a major program'."[1] The role of the CIA in sponsoring Gladio and the extent of its activities during the Cold War era, and its relationship to attacks perpetrated in Italy during the years of lead and other similar clandestine operations is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation. Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have had parliamentary inquiries into the matter.[2] The US State Department has denied involvement in terrorism and stated that some of the allegations and researchers, such as Ganser, have been influenced by what it and others describe as a Soviet forgery, US Army Field Manual 30-31B.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio I think the 80 year old man knows a hell of a lot more than you idiots. His experience and knowledge is what you should be paying attention too. When someone of this caliber tells you something maybe you should just listen instead of acting like children.

I really don't understand how this lends credence to the argument that a former President understands better than anyone else what happened in a foreign country twenty years after he ceased to be of any real importance.

I also really don't understand why this thread is still active - none of these "points" in favor of an alternate theory of 9/11 even make any coherent sense.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yes 181 61.56% No 113 38.44% Check your head again troll. You are failing.....miserably.

anyone that thinks this poll is

a) indicative of general opinion

b) meaningful in anyway whatsoever

is just an uneducated loser that hasn't had the benefit of learning things such as qualitative research methods.

can you tell me why, if the truth movement is so strong, there arent even 1000 members at the loose change forums? or why other sites are begging for donations to keep their sites going?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I really don't understand how this lends credence to the argument that a former President understands better than anyone else what happened in a foreign country twenty years after he ceased to be of any real importance. I also really don't understand why this thread is still active - none of these "points" in favor of an alternate theory of 9/11 even make any coherent sense.

all the leaders of the world get together and share trade secrets you idiot! dont you know anything!?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN all the leaders of the world get together and share trade secrets you idiot! dont you know anything!?

Even after they stop being leaders?



Also, I have a confession to make. When this thread was new, I voted "Yes"... but I swear it was only as a lark. I thought the thread was a joke, and found it amusing that the vote total could potentially be in favor of some loony alternate theory. Little did I know I was handing the diehard truthers their largest piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Even after they stop being leaders? Also, I have a confession to make. When this thread was new, I voted "Yes"... but I swear it was only as a lark. I thought the thread was a joke, and found it amusing that the vote total could potentially be in favor of some loony alternate theory. Little did I know I was handing the diehard truthers their largest piece of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

hahaha!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hahaha!

+1...LOL

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Clearly you are not even good enough to prove that the engineering ring (which your parents probably paid for) around your dirty finger is enough to handle yet the most simple issues. Are you sure you did not get it by buying it online off ebay jerkoff?

Im not exactly sure how a ring is supposed to handle anything, it is but a mere token to remind me of my obligation to my profession. I really didn't need my parents to buy it for me, it only costs 20 dollars, and if i lose it i can buy another one. The reason i have one and you don't is simply, you lack the mental capacity to be an engineer. This is why god created McDonalds..... for people like you to have a meaningful profession to call their own..... in your case that profession is making the fries to go with my big mac combo.

quote:

And yet again another three or four posts from the usual suspects who cannot deny the facts presented but instead attack the individual. At this rate you will convince all others who read this thread how incompetent you all are in debating and presenting facts.

Yet you keep posting un organized, rambling, incoherant posts full of personal insults, and "evidence" consisting of hearsay, mild conjecture, misquoted out-of-context testimony and stretched coincidence.... At least mine are just mild snide remarks and witty personal attacks without all the made up nonsense...

haven't you noticed your usual band of fellow morons hasnt been backing you up lately? maybe its because even in their deluded reality, you are starting to look like a fucktard....

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And yet again another three or four posts from the usual suspects who cannot deny the facts presented but instead attack the individual. At this rate you will convince all others who read this thread how incompetent you all are in debating and presenting facts.

How about for once you support an argument without using for evidence:

1. a link or story from some wackjob truther website

2. a quote from some tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory loon with no credentials presenting some opinion or conjecture as though it were fact

I think that your biggest problem is that you seem to have a flawed understanding of what a "fact" is.

For example, if a single janitor says he saw explosions in the basement of the WTC you accept that as a fact, that it must have happened despite there being no hard evidence or even any additional eye witness testimony (and we all know what that is worth) to back it up. But yet you can just offhandedly dismiss the findings of professionals (who actually have credentials mind you) that studied all available evidence and used actual scientific method to make a conclusion supported by real evidence of what caused the collapse of the WTC.

By doing that you present yourself as a complete idiot so it is only natural that some personal attacks against you would occur. What else can be done? None of the points you make are ever backed by any real hard evidence so how can they be debated? Maybe you should check dictionary.com and refresh your understanding of what a fact is before you post again.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And yet again another three or four posts from the usual suspects who cannot deny the facts presented but instead attack the individual. At this rate you will convince all others who read this thread how incompetent you all are in debating and presenting facts.

Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts


Folks who are trying to defend the government's version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts:

- Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the "official story" of 9/11

- Then, when the family members of the victims and every day Americans started publicly question the government's story, they said "but, all of the experts confirm the government"

- Then, when hundreds of top experts in relevant fields - military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, etc. - publicly questioned the government's story, they said "well, no structural engineers question 9/11"

- Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said "yeah, but no criticism of the government's claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

- Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . .


They keep moving the goal posts, which is a sign of dishonesty. Its the old bait-and-switch - come up with one argument, and when it is shot down as false, make up a new one.

Indeed, if Bush, Cheney, and Rummie all confessed under oath that they carried out 9/11, the defenders of the official version would probably try to move the goal posts yet again:

"true, but no one checked to see if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time.

And they've been under alot of stress recently. Maybe they've suffered from short-term memory loss.

And you don't have any video actually showing them ordering the stand down, do you?! Why should we believe you if you don't have video of them doing it?!"


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.c...oving-goal.html

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts Folks who are trying to defend the government's version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts: - Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the "official story" of 9/11 - Then, when the family members of the victims and every day Americans started publicly question the government's story, they said "but, all of the experts confirm the government" - Then, when hundreds of top experts in relevant fields - military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, etc. - publicly questioned the government's story, they said "well, no structural engineers question 9/11" - Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said "yeah, but no criticism of the government's claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal" - Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . . They keep moving the goal posts, which is a sign of dishonesty. Its the old bait-and-switch - come up with one argument, and when it is shot down as false, make up a new one. Indeed, if Bush, Cheney, and Rummie all confessed under oath that they carried out 9/11, the defenders of the official version would probably try to move the goal posts yet again: "true, but no one checked to see if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time. And they've been under alot of stress recently. Maybe they've suffered from short-term memory loss. And you don't have any video actually showing them ordering the stand down, do you?! Why should we believe you if you don't have video of them doing it?!" http://georgewashington2.blogspot.c...oving-goal.html

Why do you keep posting irrelevant opinion pieces? They are purely speculative, present no new ideas or information, and frankly, if anyone is guilty of "goal poast moving" its your camp as every time one of your theories is proved to be completely stupid, you come up with another one which is equally as wrong.

A bit pissed at the truth are you? Oh well.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp Why do you keep posting irrelevant opinion pieces? They are purely speculative, present no new ideas or information, and frankly, if anyone is guilty of "goal poast moving" its your camp as every time one of your theories is proved to be completely stupid, you come up with another one which is equally as wrong.

lol, beat me to it.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut http://georgewashington2.blogspot.c...oving-goal.html

I decided not to waste my time when I saw the ".blogspot.com" at the end.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts Folks who are trying to defend the government's version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts: - Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the "official story" of 9/11 - Then, when the family members of the victims and every day Americans started publicly question the government's story, they said "but, all of the experts confirm the government" - Then, when hundreds of top experts in relevant fields - military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, etc. - publicly questioned the government's story, they said "well, no structural engineers question 9/11" - Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said "yeah, but no criticism of the government's claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal" - Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . . They keep moving the goal posts, which is a sign of dishonesty. Its the old bait-and-switch - come up with one argument, and when it is shot down as false, make up a new one. Indeed, if Bush, Cheney, and Rummie all confessed under oath that they carried out 9/11, the defenders of the official version would probably try to move the goal posts yet again: "true, but no one checked to see if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time. And they've been under alot of stress recently. Maybe they've suffered from short-term memory loss. And you don't have any video actually showing them ordering the stand down, do you?! Why should we believe you if you don't have video of them doing it?!" http://georgewashington2.blogspot.c...oving-goal.html

fuck youre a halfwit.

where's the peer reviewed PAPER that supports controlled demolition again? oh that's right. you have a letter. a letter which is published in an online vanity journal. a letter that agrees with NIST.

fuckhead.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut A bit pissed at the truth are you? Oh well.

no im a bit pissed that ISP's dont require and IQ test to qualify for internet access......

some more info concerning the journal letter.

quote:

Dr. Jeng responded to my e-mail promptly, and he is looking into it. I'm not going to reprint his entire e-mail, but there are two interesting points. One is that before he took over the publication, the publishers handled all submissions rather than the editors. He's correctly insisting that all publications must go through the editors. This paper did not. The other point is that he was alerted to this paper by another respondent a week ago, tried to find out who the reviewers were at that time, and still hasn't gotten the answer. As expected, Dr. Jeng seems to be handling this professionally, and he has my full support. We'll see how this turns out, but I think we've found the source of the problem.

what a joke. but it won't stop those lacking an education (like cretinrot) from believing they have a peer reviewed article. im constantly amazed at how dumb the truthers can be.

This thread will come characterize the PDD for years to come...

I voted No, when I was a neocon...Then my views changed radically, and I questioned 911 for a bit, then moderated in the absence of any solid evidence. The only thing I advocate is independent commission. What 911 did however do is give neocons the chance to go on a crusade to transform the Middle East into a region friendly to US interests. In that aim, I hope the Islamists route the crusaders. I am all for the Mahdi Army, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. Only thru' resistance to the Western Alliance will they realize that their domination of the Middle East is over.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton This thread will come characterize the PDD for years to come... I voted No, when I was a neocon...Then my views changed radically, and I questioned 911 for a bit, then moderated in the absence of any solid evidence. The only thing I advocate is independent commission. What 911 did however do is give neocons the chance to go on a crusade to transform the Middle East into a region friendly to US interests. In that aim, I hope the Islamists route the crusaders. I am all for the Mahdi Army, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. Only thru' resistance to the Western Alliance will they realize that their domination of the Middle East is over.

i'm not for the war either, but at the same time i'm not supporting the killing of my fellow countrymen. you need to seriously wake up and think about what the fuck you just said.

Furthermore, your position essentially supports war, albeit on the other side. that doesn't solve the problem either.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i'm not for the war either, but at the same time i'm not supporting the killing of my fellow countrymen. you need to seriously wake up and think about what the fuck you just said.

I'm not advocating the killing of my countrymen. I am in support of the Islamist causes in the Middle East, exceptions being Al-Qaida...

My responsibility isn't to support their cause though. My responsibility is get our countrymen back home and safe so there won't be a need for a resistance to occupation. If we are to occupy their lands, then we should expect resistance to crop up and slowly bleed our military until we bankrupt our treasury fighting fucking insurgents in the middle of the desert...

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Furthermore, your position essentially supports war, albeit on the other side. that doesn't solve the problem either.

So we are to occupy other nation's land, and not expect a resistance? Come on man...Every occupation has a resistance...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So we are to occupy other nation's land, and not expect a resistance? Come on man...Every occupation has a resistance...

no, i certainly would expect resistance but that doesn't mean i support it (or that i support invasion, because i don't support either). you, on the other hand, said, and i quote: "I hope the Islamists route the crusaders. I am all for the Mahdi Army, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. Only thru' resistance to the Western Alliance will they realize that their domination of the Middle East is over"

that's straight bullshit. how can the islamists route the crusaders without killing our countrymen? if you support the islamists, you implictly support the killing of american soldiers. there is no other way about it. you can't support their resistance against american soldiers, where their main resistance tactic is to kill american soldiers, and not support the killing of american soldiers. It doesn't follow logically. you are either being too loose with your words or you truly are supporting the death of americans. that's it!!! you can't back out of that.

EDIT: what makes that comment even more irresponsible is that i'm sure you know someone from high school that is now serving in the middle east. i invite you to say that to anyone you know that has served there. whether you agree with the reason for going to war is irrelevant because your position is not against war (because you are aligning yourself with a resistance cause - which is still war), and furthermore, your position is against each individual soldier on the ground.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i'm not for the war either, but at the same time i'm not supporting the killing of my fellow countrymen. you need to seriously wake up and think about what the fuck you just said. Furthermore, your position essentially supports war, albeit on the other side. that doesn't solve the problem either.

He didnt say anything wrong.Let me guess you think he is not American by saying things like that right?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 no, i certainly would expect resistance but that doesn't mean i support it (or that i support invasion, because i don't support either). you, on the other hand, said, and i quote: "I hope the Islamists route the crusaders. I am all for the Mahdi Army, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. Only thru' resistance to the Western Alliance will they realize that their domination of the Middle East is over" that's straight bullshit. how can the islamists route the crusaders without killing our countrymen? if you support the islamists, you implictly support the killing of american soldiers. there is no other way about it. you can't support their resistance against american soldiers, where their main resistance tactic is to kill american soldiers, and not support the killing of american soldiers. It doesn't follow logically. you are either being too loose with your words or you truly are supporting the death of americans. that's it!!! you can't back out of that. EDIT: what makes that comment even more irresponsible is that i'm sure you know someone from high school that is now serving in the middle east. i invite you to say that to anyone you know that has served there. whether you agree with the reason for going to war is irrelevant because your position is not against war (because you are aligning yourself with a resistance cause - which is still war), and furthermore, your position is against each individual soldier on the ground.

If we are to be aggressive occupiers, then yes, I hope they route the hell out of our military. I don't want to live in an empire. I want to live in the America I was taught about in school. The America people don't hate. We are a hated country. If we could withdraw today, that would be great. I don't want anymore death. But guess what, as long as we occupy their country, there will be death of our soldiers. And for what? Bush's vision of democracy? That is the agenda I hope gets the shit kicked out of it. Sadly, it will take more death for us to realize the futility of carrying out this imperialist agenda.

Yes I am American, but I will not support our troops simply out of patriotism, blind to the destruction we are causing to innocent people. That is where I support their resistance. I look upon them as freedom fighters, not terrorists. And guess what. No soldiers would be dying if we weren't there. I know... it's hard for war apologists to accept that...

My father served two tours in Iraq AND Afghanistan. I haven't seen him in 3 years. I straight up tell him that I think we are imperialists and all that. He is a conservative. He certainly disagrees with me saying we are imperialists. But he does not agree with the Iraq War. He also always compares our current situation in America with the decline of the Roman Empire.

Would I tell him, I hope the resistance routes the Americans out of Iraq? Yes I would. Would he be strongly against this. HELL YES. Now if we withdraw, no need for a route... The Islamic Revolution of Iraq will occur. The Americans are trying to suppress it. But they will not. They need to just withdraw.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.