• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9-11: Who did it?[W:1493]

kjwins said:
LOL how did I know you were going to say that. Yes I read it. A widely held opinion piece.
Click to expand...

LOL how did I know you were going to dodge like that..

Have you read the PNAC?

You know... The document you mention in "But the target was always Iraq. This was all laid out in the Project for a New America Century, pre-9/11."
 
Mark F said:
9/11 Truth has never had a case. Evidence sure, but never a case. It is a dying movement now for precisely that reason.
Click to expand...

Then you have nothing to worry about Mark. So are you going to stop posting your daily OCT propaganda now since you believe the threat to the OCT fairy tale is "dying"?
 
Fledermaus said:
LOL how did I know you were going to dodge like that..

Have you read the PNAC?

You know... The document you mention in "But the target was always Iraq. This was all laid out in the Project for a New America Century, pre-9/11."
Click to expand...

No not the official document. Just about it.

Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
 
Bob0627 said:
I don't speak for any class of people you classify as "truther" or "CTs" so unlike you who often uses the term "we" as if you believe you are part of a larger groupthink class, I can only speak for myself.
Click to expand...
1. where do you get the idea I often use the term we?
2. All truthers claim to be independent yet they all get their information from the same group of CT sites.

The above is clearly nonsense because the evidence, the science and the logic (among other factors) actually speaks for itself and is incredibly overwhelming.
Click to expand...
Yes it is and it proves 911 was caused by terrorists hijacking and crashing 4 planes.
The US government LIED about 9/11, that's not even controversial, it's a fact based on the US government's own claims. Lying is not just about spewing invented propaganda, lying also consists of denying the release of 10,000 (give or take) documents/pieces of evidence via false pretenses.
Click to expand...
Not releasing documents is not lying that is a factually incorrect statement on your part.


The US government has proven itself to be a murderous entity capable of all sorts of crimes against humanity. That is well documented even within the US government itself (e.g. "we tortured some folks"). So elements within the US government are fully capable of carrying out all sorts of crimes. However, it is not evidence in itself that it did engage in the 9/11 crime in many different ways. As already explained above, the evidence of the US government's involvement in 9/11 exists and is clear by its own actions, non-actions and what is publicly known.
Click to expand...
Bolded is the only relevant point here. The sentence afterwards is a complete fabrication on your part as ther eis absolutely no evidence of what you claim.


It isn't about "ct nonsense", it's about showing the most ignorant among us that those who are reasonably intelligent and educated know and understand what governments are really about. This is known as human history, something I'm quite sure you've learned but pretend to deny by defending the US government every single chance you get.
Click to expand...
1. For you and all truthers it most certainly is about the CT nonsense.
2. I don't defend the US govt every single chance I get but I don't invent BS to attack them with either like truthers do.


No it's not the "best got". I've posted tons on the subject of 9/11. But for you, there is nothing that I have that means anything to you. And that's quite ok with me because it isn't my job to educate or convince you of anything nor do I actually care about your state of mind.
Click to expand...

Tons of Bs is just a lot of manure, nothing you have posted even comes close to hinting the govt did it.


Governments do all sorts of evil things for all sorts of reasons and many governments have been exposed throughout history.
True but again it doesn't mean they always do horrible things and when they do it is never as complex with so little chance of success.

That's why there have been revolutions in the past and will be in the future. 9/11 was not a situation where thousands were knowingly and directly involved. Elements within the US government were directly and knowingly involved in specific ways that we are not privy to. Indirectly, keeping the legend alive is extremely profitable so the cover up continues at the highest levels within the US government.
Click to expand...
For CD to have happened on 911 (no intelligent reason you or any truther has ever given for them to bother with) Then yes thousands needed to be involved.


Yeah sure, I demand the truth and I don't swallow government propaganda so I believe in fairy tales. It's a silly contradiction but what else can I expect from you.
Click to expand...
No you despise the truth you want nothing to do with it, you want to live in your fantasy world where you are the bright shining light that knows the truth and everyone else is just little peopns. Only problem is you don't know the truth (or at least wont admit it to yourself) and you are no bright shining light.



Your claims belong in the same place as all your claims (as seen above), quite flushable. So I don't need to comment further about the rest of your post, it's all the same silliness.
Click to expand...

What claims? You are the one making claism and they are all outlandish and just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Fledermaus said:
You have not read the PNAC.

Ergo you argue from ignorance.

Read it, then we can talk.
Click to expand...

Sure, right after you watch the Tom Drake interview, & read Howard Zinn: A Peoples History of the United States.
 
Bob0627 said:
Then you have nothing to worry about Mark. So are you going to stop posting your daily OCT propaganda now since you believe the threat to the OCT fairy tale is "dying"?
Click to expand...

As usual, you miss the point completely AGAIN while attempting to derail from the discussion of the importance of being able to present a case, not just "evidence".
 
kjwins said:
Sure, right after you watch the Tom Drake interview, & read Howard Zinn: A Peoples History of the United States.
Click to expand...

So you introduced the PNAC document as evidence but have not actually read it, is that correct?
 
GunFora said:
There are probably hundreds of threads on this. Let me start by saying that I am not a conspiracy theorist at all and never have been. However, there are many questions that have been left unanswered.

1. Flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville, PA.
Q. Why were there no bodies or luggage at the "crash site"?
Q. Why was there no plane wreckage at the "crash site"?

2. An alleged plane hits the Pentagon.
Q. Why was there a near perfectly round hole in the outer wall with no wing sections or tail section on the ground?
Click to expand...

You are claiming that you are not a conspiracy theorist, yet you are wording questions in a way that makes you sound very much like one. As for no bodies and luggage at the shanksville crash site, when a commercial jet virtually nosedives into the ground at over 400 mph, the bodies on board basically become a jelly like goo. And there was some wreckage found at the crash site. And there were eye witness's as well as video of the plane diving into the pentagon. And wreckage was recovered inside the pentagon.
 
Mark F said:
So you introduced the PNAC document as evidence but have not actually read it, is that correct?
Click to expand...

no I have not. I'm not a lawyer & this is not a courtroom either though.
 
kjwins said:
no I have not. I'm not a lawyer & this is not a courtroom either though.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you are trying to make a case and this is something you introduced.

So you are taking someone else's word for what the document contains, yes?
 
Mark F said:
Ah, but you are trying to make a case and this is something you introduced.

So you are taking someone else's word for what the document contains, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes, but not just this one document.
 
Fledermaus said:
A few problems with your version of "obvious".

The planning and preparation for the attacks occurred LONG before Bush came to office.

Ben Laden's father disowned Osama well before the attacks.

And when did GW invade Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

I don't really think we know how long the prep was. I know that it sounds screwy, but there's just some element of truth hiding in there that gives me pause.

As for your versions of 911, you really have to back and look at the beginning of the first X Files movie...
 
kjwins said:
Yes, but not just this one document.
Click to expand...

So your case essentially is I think this one document says X because I found some web site that claims is says X but I really couldn't be bothered to verify it for myself. Is there another document you haven't bothered to actually read or comprehend whose contents you are just going to assume support your claim that you would like us to consider?
 
zyzygy said:
No. I have never seen any X files movie. What did you mean?
Click to expand...

Go to YouTube and plug the movie in. Watch the first 15 or so minutes, then you'll see where the 911 cover up stuff comes from. MInd you, the movie released in 1998.
 
jet57 said:
Go to YouTube and plug the movie in. Watch the first 15 or so minutes, then you'll see where the 911 cover up stuff comes from. MInd you, the movie released in 1998.
Click to expand...

I see. Thank you.
 
Mark F said:
So your case essentially is I think this one document says X because I found some web site that claims is says X but I really couldn't be bothered to verify it for myself. Is there another document you haven't bothered to actually read or comprehend whose contents you are just going to assume support your claim that you would like us to consider?
Click to expand...

DRAKE: I owed it to the people. I took the oath. I wasn't going to break the oath that I took. The oath mattered to me. It was the fourth time I had taken it. It mattered. And here's the president committing high crimes and misdemeanors as defined by the Constitution.
JAY: And how did it feel?
DRAKE: Suspending the Constitution because we had failed to provide, under the preamble, the common defense, suspending the Constitution, for all intents and purposes, willfully and deliberately. So the only thing left that I have is defend it. So I decided to keep defending it from within until I no longer could. That's when I went outside the system. And that's what got me in trouble.

More to come
 
Mark F said:
So your case essentially is I think this one document says X because I found some web site that claims is says X but I really couldn't be bothered to verify it for myself. Is there another document you haven't bothered to actually read or comprehend whose contents you are just going to assume support your claim that you would like us to consider?
Click to expand...

JAY: And it doesn't matter this was really all preparation for the invasion of Iraq that might've cost 1 million Iraqis' lives.
DRAKE: The truth be told, they were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq before 9/11. They had it. That was the real priority in terms of what we would do militarily overseas.
JAY: From day one.
DRAKE: Yes, from day one.
JAY: Of the Bush administration.
DRAKE: Right. Other people forget as well is that NSA was circulating--during the presidential transition team period, the PTT, Bush is elected, Clinton is still--well, he's president-elect, but he's not the president yet. He has not taken the oath. There was a memo that was circulated by NSA seeking relief on the probable cause standard on the Fourth Amendment. They were already looking for ways to erode it significantly.
JAY: So if your highest foreign-policy priority in reality from the very beginning is the invasion of Iraq, then it's not a big surprise you de-prioritize terrorism, because, heck, wouldn't that be a nice excuse--
DRAKE: Yes.
JAY: --for what our number-one priority is?
DRAKE: And then conveniently link it--which was, of course, completely framed, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

more to come
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom