Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
PolyNewbie

9/11

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

reffric:Al Qaeda had made previous statements saying they were going to do this. Bush and the administration were mocked for their refusal to beleive a memo titled "Al-qaeda plans to crash planes into buildings" or something of that nature. But if you can claim that even this was part of the set up then you can prove anything. Was the US governemnt also responsible for the USS cole incident? I guess they could be, it could have been support for al-qaeda's existence, but then again that organization is also a possible CIA manifested fantasy.

That is rumours and gossip. If people repeat to you that the moon is made of cheeze does that constitute proof ? Presstitute commentary, even when repeated adds up to nothing.

When you explain the gov has said this you are assumming that 911 could not be lying. If 911 was an inside job then certainly gov is capable of making up this kind of propoganda. We have seen it before "WMD

Al Queada is the name of the terrorist network built up by Washington to do false flag ops. Al Qaeda means "the Organization"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They already had troops on the Afghan border and were showing those towers collaspe every day to build up fear (but not wtc7).

Number one: America has never needed much pretense to invade third world shitholes before. Why did they require the murder of 3,000+ people this time? Number two: why would they be so fired up to invade a shithole like Afghanistan in the first place if not to pursue Al Qaeda? Number three: what's that have to do with a domestic police state?

You'd help your cause a lot mor eif you actually addressed the questions instead of tossing around red herrings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They already had troops on the Afghan border and were showing those towers collaspe every day to build up fear (but not wtc7).

Number one: America has never needed much pretense to invade third world shitholes before.

You are violating my trade mark word - one which the so many on the left were so up-in-arms about when I started using it here.

You are also wasting your time. Get yourself a degree in psychology and at least you can cnosider the time spent here of value in diagnosing possible psychological illnesses and defects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are violating my trade mark word - one which the so many on the left were so up-in-arms about when I started using it here.

Bah. "Shithole" is public domain.

You are also wasting your time.

No kiddin'?

Get yourself a degree in psychology and at least you can cnosider the time spent here of value in diagnosing possible psychological illnesses and defects.

"Here" being this thread or this board? I say: both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is rumours and gossip. If people repeat to you that the moon is made of cheeze does that constitute proof ? Presstitute commentary, even when repeated adds up to nothing.

When you explain the gov has said this you are assumming that 911 could not be lying. If 911 was an inside job then certainly gov is capable of making up this kind of propoganda. We have seen it before "WMD

Al Queada is the name of the terrorist network built up by Washington to do false flag ops. Al Qaeda means "the Organization"

Arabic al-qā‘ida, the base : al-, the + qā‘ida, foundation, base, feminine participle of qa‘ada, to sit.]

http://www.answers.com/topic/al-qaeda

Making up propoganda and crashing planes into buildings are slightly different. Lying about WMDs is easy enough to do because the average American citizen doesn't go to Iraq and doesn't investigate the claims.

You are right about the repeating things over and over again does not consititute proof. Your argument is living proof of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on since the government made up the whole WMD thing, and apparently were the ones who had attacked the WTC, why not plant WMD's in Iraq.

PN, why didn't the CIA plant WMD's in Iraq in order to advance their claim's. If they committed September 11, then surely planting WMD's to justify the Iraq invasion would be a cakewalk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hold on since the government made up the whole WMD thing, and apparently were the ones who had attacked the WTC, why not plant WMD's in Iraq.

PN, why didn't the CIA plant WMD's in Iraq in order to advance their claim's. If they committed September 11, then surely planting WMD's to justify the Iraq invasion would be a cakewalk.

That was all part of the government plan and the New World Order. Look really stupid in the world forum to gain support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Number one: America has never needed much pretense to invade third world shitholes before. Why did they require the murder of 3,000+ people this time? Number two: why would they be so fired up to invade a shithole like Afghanistan in the first place if not to pursue Al Qaeda? Number three: what's that have to do with a domestic police state?

They have always needed a pretence to invade other peaceful countries that have people representative governments. In fact they invade to change governments from people oriented to corrupt dictatorships that will let the western banks print their money for them and lend it to them at face value. Thats is what the wars are about - replacing real governments with criminals so that the criminals can be paid off and let the western banks in.

The rogue nations all have one thing in common, Western banks are not doing their financing. (Robert Gaylon Ross video on Google), Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man (Book/Perkins)

They can invade smaller countries like Nicaragua and Haiti without anyone noticing but for larger countries like Iraq or Iran they need volunteers that are willing to fight for "democracy" so they need to motivate people to join up.

You'd help your cause a lot mor eif you actually addressed the questions instead of tossing around red herrings.

Such as ? What red herring ?

reffrick:That was all part of the government plan and the New World Order. Look really stupid in the world forum to gain support.

But it doesn't matter now. Other governments know what the Americans are doing. Its just a few of the less intelligent Americans that watch too much TV that don't get it. Do you remember Condi Rice talking about the mushroom clouds, etc ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it doesn't matter now. Other governments know what the Americans are doing. Its just a few of the less intelligent Americans that watch too much TV that don't get it. Do you remember Condi Rice talking about the mushroom clouds, etc ?

As well as the media, the American Society of Civil Engineers, NIST, a large majority of American's and Canadian's.

Hey PN, I noticed you didn't respond to the question about WMD's, what the fack.

They have always needed a pretence to invade other peaceful countries that have people representative governments. In fact they invade to change governments from people oriented to corrupt dictatorships that will let the western banks print their money for them and lend it to them at face value. Thats is what the wars are about - replacing real governments with criminals so that the criminals can be paid off and let the western banks in.

Iraq was a peaceful representative government, yikes!!! :rolleyes:

Their is no way in hell South Park was wrong about Saddam.

They can invade smaller countries like Nicaragua and Haiti without anyone noticing but for larger countries like Iraq or Iran they need volunteers that are willing to fight for "democracy" so they need to motivate people to join up.

What the fack is their to gain from invading Haiti? Wow this is poorest country in the world, with one of the worst AID's epidemics, sounds like a great place to colonize.

Such as ? What red herring ?

I don't know, proof beyond the usual sites set up by some nut who did too many shrooms in college.

Do you remember Condi Rice talking about the mushroom clouds, etc ?

I don't remember that, maybe you were doing shroom's and that was the first thing that came to mind.

Besides, The Neverending story is a topic which is much more relevant.

Is it really a Neverending story, or does it actually end, and if it does, who ends the Neverending Story. Could it be the CIA, Mossad, Bigfoot, Elvis, The Illuminati, The World Bank, The Mason's, The Jews, Opus Dei, who???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canadian Blue:What the fack is their to gain from invading Haiti? Wow this is poorest country in the world, with one of the worst AID's epidemics, sounds like a great place to colonize.

I don't know but Haiti was invaded by the JTF and Americans, Aristide was kidnapped and Canada and US have taken over to put their puppet government in place just like in Afgnaistan.

It was briefly in the news a few years back but the corporate controlled mainstream media stopped reporting on it.

You can listen to a few interviews with Aristide on "Democracy Now", a radio show on the web that is fianced by the global elite.

Aristide had a 90% approval rating and was a pro people governemnt wanting to get Haiti back on its feet, similar to indonesia although Indonesia was invaded from withing by criminal forces the way it is being done in USA now. The reason is that the globalist corporations can use these small relatively isolated people as slave labour to make T shirts and running shoes, etc.

Canadian Blue:Besides, The Neverending story is a topic which is much more relevant.

Why don't you start a thread on the Never Ending Story and post there instead of polluting this thread with your stupidity ?

You are big idiot that stands out in a never ending field of idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you start a thread on the Never Ending Story and post there instead of polluting this thread with your stupidity ?

You are big idiot that stands out in a never ending field of idiots.

Are you kidding dude, the Neverending Story debate is the most intelligent one on here because it doesn't lead off to how some evil New World Order did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canadian Blue: Are you kidding dude, the Neverending Story debate is the most intelligent one on here because it doesn't lead off to how some evil New World Order did it.

This thread is about 911. If you think that the Never Ending Story is important than start a thread. I'm starting a complaint aginst you on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are big idiot that stands out in a never ending field of idiots.

So we are now idiots for not following the "truth" movement. And they say the art of propoganda is dead. Demean your enemies and make yourself stand out as the only logical one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stignasty, pick your favorite point of PM's and I will prove to you that they are either lying or misleading wrt facts.

Any point. Anybody else too. You pick.

So we are now idiots for not following the "truth" movement. And they say the art of propoganda is dead. Demean your enemies and make yourself stand out as the only logical one.

No. I called CanadianBlue an idiot for confusing this topic with the Never Ending Story. I think if you look at 911 carefully and still believe the official version then you must be a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stignasty, pick your favorite point of PM's and I will prove to you that they are either lying or misleading wrt facts.

Any point. Anybody else too. You pick.

So we are now idiots for not following the "truth" movement. And they say the art of propoganda is dead. Demean your enemies and make yourself stand out as the only logical one.

No. I called CanadianBlue an idiot for confusing this topic with the Never Ending Story. I think if you look at 911 carefully and still believe the official version then you must be a fool.

Ahh, now it is a group of fools then.

I may not believe everything about the official report because some things will inevitably be wrong. That being said, the overall 'Bin Laden's henchmen put planes into buildings and ground' theme still works well for me. Add me to your fool category.

I have always appreciated people looking deeply into issues. Close examination is required. Blind hatred and discrediting people with opposing views with name calling is a clear sign of desperation. If you want to believe missles were fired into the pentagon or that fake phone calls were made, knock yourself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kimmy:I find it believable because of Al Qaeda's previous statements and actions, and their subsequent statements and actions.

I think this is "here say" rather than proof. If 911 was an inside job then the CIA could have easily made this up.

You're proposing that the CIA has performed attacks all over the globe for a decade, going back to the Clinton regime, to set this up, and continue to do so, in order to maintain this illusion. And that aside from that, that they created fictional intelligence reports to ignore, so that they'd look like idiots and be accused of failing to protect their own citizens. Does it add up? Not really.

Kimmy:The first thing that becomes apparent is that the image the Truthies like so much, "Osama E", has been DARKENED. Compare the background from "Osama E" to other frames taken from the same video. The lighting seems different: the contrast between light and dark has been altered. In the Truthie picture, bright areas have been brightened and dark areas are darker than in the actual video. Either they had some problems with their lighting early in the video that they fixed by the end of the tape, or else somebody fucked with the contrast using image-editing software.

Show us the real picture then so we can see the doctoring. Do you thing they digitally modified his nose too?

I'm not going to go through the video frame by frame to find the image that "Osama E" is based on. Why would I, when I've already shown you a whole page of stills from the same video, posted on a Truthie website, that prove that there are significant differences between "Osama E" and the real content of the video?

The background Osama was speaking in front of was a light beige color, not the coffee color seen in "Osama E". The other images from the video also show that the lighting conditions in that room do not create the prominent highlights and shadows seen in the "Osama E" image.

Do you think those muslims that control the media :huh: intentionally made a picture of the real Osama look fake and then forced CNN to show it that way ?

The modifications done to the "Osama E" image are not apparent in the other images taken from the video, so no: I don't think anybody forced CNN to broadcast "Osama E". I don't think "Osama E" was ever broadcast. I think that someone has taken a screen capture from the video, used photo-editting software to alter it, and are now using the altered image to support their viewpoint. The obvious JPEG artifacts seen in "Osama E" are proof that the image has been created with image-editting software, so the question is, how much in the image has been changed? The obvious fact that image-editting software has been used means that "Osama E" is contaminated evidence. If that image were presented as evidence at a trial, it would be thrown out of court.

The Truthies ask why "Osama E" doesn't look like the other Osamas. The real question is, why doesn't "Osama E" look like any of the images taken from *the* *same* *video*.

Get back to me when you've got an explanation for why the "Truthies" are out there promoting a *fake* picture as "proof".

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe a tin foil hat thread has gone on this long. This is a topic you would expect to see debated in Tehran.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kimmy:You're proposing that the CIA has performed attacks all over the globe for a decade, going back to the Clinton regime, to set this up, and continue to do so, in order to maintain this illusion. And that aside from that, that they created fictional intelligence reports to ignore, so that they'd look like idiots and be accused of failing to protect their own citizens. Does it add up? Not really.

Not for a decade, its been going on for about 50 years starting with Iran in the 50's to put the shah in place. This is admitted. They didn't create fictional intelligence to ignore - that would be silly. They just say the intelligence was wrong so that they can be excused for their actions due to honest error.

kimmy:The modifications done to the "Osama E" image are not apparent in the other images taken from the video, so no: I don't think anybody forced CNN to broadcast "Osama E". I don't think "Osama E" was ever broadcast. I think that someone has taken a screen capture from the video, used photo-editting software to alter it, and are now using the altered image to support their viewpoint. The obvious JPEG artifacts seen in "Osama E" are proof that the image has been created with image-editting software, so the question is, how much in the image has been changed? The obvious fact that image-editting software has been used means that "Osama E" is contaminated evidence. If that image were presented as evidence at a trial, it would be thrown out of court.

The Truthies ask why "Osama E" doesn't look like the other Osamas. The real question is, why doesn't "Osama E" look like any of the images taken from *the* *same* *video*.

Get back to me when you've got an explanation for why the "Truthies" are out there promoting a *fake* picture as "proof".

I recall seeing that clip on CNN shortly after 911 and after a report a few weeks earlier of Osama saying he didn't do it. When I saw the video I knew right away that this wasn't the real Osama and it further confirmed what I had already known after seeing the collapse of wtc7. At the time I didn't know any one else that thought 911 was an inside job until a year or so later.

Perhaps what is shown on whatreallyhappened would be thrown out of court but the original clip from CNN would not. (not to say that I am a lawyer, I am certainly NOT a lawyer nor would I want to be)

Do you really think the collapse of wtc7 was from a fire ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reffrick:I may not believe everything about the official report because some things will inevitably be wrong. That being said, the overall 'Bin Laden's henchmen put planes into buildings and ground' theme still works well for me. Add me to your fool category.

I believe that too, but I also think this was a setup and that controlled demolition actually caused the collapses. Of course we wiull never know because the actual collapses were not investigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recall seeing that clip on CNN shortly after 911 and after a report a few weeks earlier of Osama saying he didn't do it. When I saw the video I knew right away that this wasn't the real Osama and it further confirmed what I had already known after seeing the collapse of wtc7. At the time I didn't know any one else that thought 911 was an inside job until a year or so later.

No, no, no. Don't go changing the subject. You always do this... if somebody presses you to explain how the 2nd law of thermodynamics has anything remotely to do with buildings, you start waving your hands in the air about NORAD and stand-down orders, and then two weeks later you're back to thermodynamics.

I don't want to hear about WTC7 right now, I want to hear you address the questions I actually posed. If I let you change the subject now, you're going to be back here in 2 weeks saying "any retard can see that it's not Osama in that video".

If you can't explain why the Truthies keep showing people that doctored image, then why don't you find me an *unaltered* image from that video that you think makes the same point.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe a tin foil hat thread has gone on this long. This is a topic you would expect to see debated in Tehran.....

While I see your point, I think having a conference to debunk the Holocaust is more sinister than the people who want to question the events of 9/11.

Stignasty, pick your favorite point of PM's and I will prove to you that they are either lying or misleading wrt facts.

First off, what's a "wrt" fact?

You see, I find what reffric said to be totally on the money. "I may not believe everything about the official report because some things will inevitably be wrong. That being said, the overall 'Bin Laden's henchmen put planes into buildings and ground' theme still works well for me. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no....

The US was smart enough to pull of 9/11 to bring in a police state, but wasn't smart enough to plant WMD's in Iraq after the invasion.

As well PN stated Iraq was a peaceful government which was represented by the people. Despite all of the mass murder, torture, and Jew hatred.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CanadianBlue:The US was smart enough to pull of 9/11 to bring in a police state, but wasn't smart enough to plant WMD's in Iraq after the invasion.

He didn't have to. The fact that they lied about WMD's doesn't seem to matter.

As well PN stated Iraq was a peaceful government which was represented by the people. Despite all of the mass murder, torture, and Jew hatred.

I didn't say they were peaceful. I said Saddam Hussein was a nationalist which is why he had to be destroyed. Same as Haiti, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc. The USA goes to war to put in corrupt governemnts that subsequently let the IMF take charge of their money and allow multinational corps to come in. They just find war criminals that will take the position and pay them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

I didn't say they were peaceful. I said Saddam Hussein was a nationalist which is why he had to be destroyed. Same as Haiti, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc. The USA goes to war to put in corrupt governemnts that subsequently let the IMF take charge of their money and allow multinational corps to come in. They just find war criminals that will take the position and pay them off.

Saddam Hussein wasn't a war criminal... okay...

He didn't have to. The fact that they lied about WMD's doesn't seem to matter.

So instead of planting WMD's when the media was questioning the war in Iraq, the administration did nothing about it so people would eventually be opposed to the war, and vote in a Democratic congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...