Shocking documentary uncovers the subversion of Americas democracy.
The first one minute forty seven seconds of this program is in broadcast in Dutch, The remainder is in English.
Don't you want to join the "man"?
richard raiban
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
So what's the synopsis?
more evidence for you to dismiss & laugh at :rolleyes:
watch it first in its entirety before you start commenting on it.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by richard raiban
more evidence for you to dismiss & laugh at :rolleyes:
watch it first in its entirety before you start commenting on it.
Why would you expect trolls to read/watch anything?
richard raiban
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Why would you expect trolls to read/watch anything?
True. I guess i was hoping that they would but you're right, why bother when they can just bloviate and attack people.
UXC
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Why would you expect trolls to read/watch anything?
I'm new here but + 1
just leave it
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by richard raiban
more evidence for you to dismiss & laugh at :rolleyes:
watch it first in its entirety before you start commenting on it.
I'd join the Carlyle group if I could. How about that for watching your documentary?
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Why would you expect trolls to read/watch anything?
Culorut, is the US government still ignoring intelligence warnings about themselves attacking themselves? I'm curious.
/repost
basilisk
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Why would you expect trolls to read/watch anything?
I think we're interested in reading your own original thoughts on the matter. What happened on 9/11?
love_child
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Culorut, is the US government still ignoring intelligence warnings about themselves attacking themselves? I'm curious.
/repost
I think your mixing it all together. The people who said they ignored warnings are not the same people who said they are the ones who did it. I believe people assume one or the other but not both.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Bull, obvious denial is obvious.
If the 9/11 Commission was not sabotaged and would have allowed it without covering up hundreds if not thousands of first hand testimonies (over 500 from the firefighters alone) they would have all been hung by their balls in a matter of seconds.
9/11 Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military's complete lack of response on that day.
Six 9/11 Commissioners which stood on the board all have come out and stated it was a complete wash. And these individuals/whistle blowers are only one small sample size of the many.
Thomas Kean, Max Cleland, Bob Kerrey, Lee Hamilton, Tim Roemer and John Lehman.
Thomas Kean (Co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission) stated, "It was setup to fail from the start."
Max Cleland resigned completely and stated, "The Commission had been deliberately compromised by the president of the United States."
Tim Roemer, "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting. We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy."
John Lehman (former Secretary of the Navy), "All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest". Lehman strongly implies that the Commission was purposely set up so that every single person involved would have a conflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an honest investigation.
Bob Kerrey confessed "The 9/11 Commission could not do it's job"
Truth be told all the 9/11 Commission ended up being was a story (propaganda) the way Bush and Cheney wanted it told to the public, in fact they would not even testify unless they were present together in front of the panel.
The 9/11 Commission report itslef states, "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned." Kind of easy to come to a conclusion in their favor when they set it up to fail and omitted the truth from everyone.
I wouldn't expect you to know any better as you have never read a page of the report you blindly defend. Very similar to PKC who has now admitted after years of trolling and bashing on this forum that he only read a couple dozen pages from the 600 page book of lies he also defends blindly. The fact is he barely made it past the opening credits.
I apologize for turning your world upside down.
lol! conspiracy theorists love a good cherry pick! :haha:
Lee Hamilton, along with Thomas Keane:
quote:
Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.
... [NORAD] gave us inaccurate information. We asked for a lot of material and a lot of documentation. They did not supply it all. They gave us a few things. We sent some staff into their headquarters. We identified a lot more documents and tapes, they eventually gave them to us, we had to issue a subpoena to get them. Eventually they told us we had the story right, they had it wrong, it took a while to get to that point, but we eventually got here.
they can't even get the basics right!
7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
