NSA Lied About Knowledge Of 2 Hijackers In U.S., Didn't Inform The FBI[W:32]

[Fledermaus]

You are ridiculous...

Ok... so, you have the transcript (allegedly), I post the audio (which you quoted the link to tell me that I did not post the audio), and you say it's out of context without explaining the context.

BMAN: 30 years or so later the tapes came out with the president ordering the fakery, conspiracy fact.

Show me.....

What tapes? And where do they state "president ordering the fakery"?

THIS tape does NOT show the president ordering the fakery.

 

[Fledermaus]

Oh look at that you figured out how the internet works.

Ok genius, what does that sequence actually say?

Can't read?


The link was an after the fact discussion on how the Navy responded and what should be discussed on Capital Hill....

 

[BmanMcfly]

Can't read?


The link was an after the fact discussion on how the Navy responded and what should be discussed on Capital Hill....

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahshahahhaahhahahahahahahshahahahahahahahqhahahahahahah!!!!

There were 2 incidents in the Gulf of tonkin. They are making up the story to tell so they could tie the 2 attacks together, the one real one and the one they are fabricating on the phone.

 

[Thoreau72]

oh boy, we're in that part of the forest where large font lives! :shock:

 

[Mark F]

You are ridiculous...

Ok... so, you have the transcript (allegedly), I post the audio (which you quoted the link to tell me that I did not post the audio), and you say it's out of context without explaining the context.

You have not stated precisely what your claim is, nor have you quoted which specific parts of the recordings support that claim within the proper context (timeline for example). Those are facts. If you would like to make a specifically stated claim and defend it, start a new thread. It is OT here.

 

[BmanMcfly]

You have not stated precisely what your claim is, nor have you quoted which specific parts of the recordings support that claim within the proper context (timeline for example). Those are facts. If you would like to make a specifically stated claim and defend it, start a new thread. It is OT here.

Lmao... If you seriously have this much trouble understanding context, then there's little help.

Please tell me you are just pretending to be this dumb? I don't mean that as an insult, pm me if you don't want to hurt your rep with the other debunkers.

What do you think the subject of this conversation is and the relevance of the source I provided, along with the alleged transcript you have of the same?

 

[Mark F]

Lmao... If you seriously have this much trouble understanding context, then there's little help.

Please tell me you are just pretending to be this dumb? I don't mean that as an insult, pm me if you don't want to hurt your rep with the other debunkers.

What do you think the subject of this conversation is and the relevance of the source I provided, along with the alleged transcript you have of the same?

You have not stated precisely what your claim is, nor have you quoted which specific parts of the recordings support that claim within the proper context (timeline for example). Those are facts. If you would like to make a specifically stated claim and defend it, start a new thread. It is OT here.

I have no interest in further indulging your childish, evasive circular games. If you find this particular subject of such import state your claim precisely and back it up in a new OP or drop it. Your choice. I shall not discuss this further here.

 

[Fledermaus]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahshahahhaahhahahahahahahshahahahahahahahqhahahahahahah!!!!

There were 2 incidents in the Gulf of tonkin. They are making up the story to tell so they could tie the 2 attacks together, the one real one and the one they are fabricating on the phone.

BMAN: 30 years or so later the tapes came out with the president ordering the fakery, conspiracy fact.


Show me.....

Where do they state "president ordering the fakery"?

How can the President order the attacks be faked WELL AFTER THE ATTACKS?

 

[BmanMcfly]

You have not stated precisely what your claim is, nor have you quoted which specific parts of the recordings support that claim within the proper context (timeline for example). Those are facts. If you would like to make a specifically stated claim and defend it, start a new thread. It is OT here.

I have no interest in further indulging your childish, evasive circular games. If you find this particular subject of such import state your claim precisely and back it up in a new OP or drop it. Your choice. I shall not discuss this further here.

Quit playing these games... Playing dumb on mundane things destroys what little credibility you have on more complex topics.

Original claim: most "conspiracy theories" (aside the aliens and unicorns, obviously) given enough time turns out to be conspiracy fact.

Then when called on that I provided a list of about 12 conspiracy facts that began as conspiracy theory.

You wanted me to go over every one; I chose just the top one because you've got a track record.

Then, I told you the generic process; the first gulf of Tonkin incident happened, then the second incident was used to start the war. When the troops came back they said there was no second incident, which because "rumours" that there was no second incident, and finally it became a conspiracy theory about the second incident.

NOW, some 30 years later the tapes were declassified proving that there was no second incident, that it was a fabrication for justification.

You asked for sources, which I provided, even though you claimed to have the transcript of the audio... And now you want to backpedal, but forgot how far you had to back pedal to get around the fact that you are, as usual, proven wrong.

 

[Fledermaus]

Quit playing these games... Playing dumb on mundane things destroys what little credibility you have on more complex topics.

Original claim: most "conspiracy theories" (aside the aliens and unicorns, obviously) given enough time turns out to be conspiracy fact.

Then when called on that I provided a list of about 12 conspiracy facts that began as conspiracy theory.

You wanted me to go over every one; I chose just the top one because you've got a track record.

Then, I told you the generic process; the first gulf of Tonkin incident happened, then the second incident was used to start the war. When the troops came back they said there was no second incident, which because "rumours" that there was no second incident, and finally it became a conspiracy theory about the second incident.

NOW, some 30 years later the tapes were declassified proving that there was no second incident, that it was a fabrication for justification.

You asked for sources, which I provided, even though you claimed to have the transcript of the audio... And now you want to backpedal, but forgot how far you had to back pedal to get around the fact that you are, as usual, proven wrong.

Your source does not support your CLAIM of the "president ordering the fakery".

 

[BmanMcfly]

Your source does not support your CLAIM of the "president ordering the fakery".

Explain yourself.

 

[Fledermaus]

Explain yourself.

I did. You ignored.

Hint: AFTER THE FACT

 

[BmanMcfly]

I did. You ignored.

Hint: AFTER THE FACT

Yes, after the fact of the first incident, but before the announcement of the second incident. Which never happened, but were discussing what they would say to describe the incident.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes, after the fact of the first incident, but before the announcement of the second incident. Which never happened, but were discussing what they would say to describe the incident.

When was the discussion?

 

[BmanMcfly]

When was the discussion?

If you can't figure it out, nothing I say can help you.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Oh so you do care that hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been massacred for the MIC then?

You see, this is what is wrong with you. You project and assume and that is your weak point. I know you're merely doing it to annoy so, I won't bite on this particular piece of juvenile trash, suffice it to say, just grow up (have you ever considered why people say that to you frequently?).

I'm sorry, I didn't get that from any of your posts or the one above (since you facetiously started it with "Oh, the drama"), just the opposite.

Of course you didn't get that from any of my posts. You never read what is written, only what you want to see. You employed a logical fallacy and started making up crap when I pointed it out-it's what you do. Deal with it.

 

[Bob0627]

Of course you didn't get that from any of my posts. You never read what is written, only what you want to see.

Ok then, show me one post of yours where you write anything that be construed as caring about the needless death of those hundreds of thousands of innocent people, if you actually have one. I don't really care, I'm just curious if you can back up your claim in that you barely hinted that I might be wrong. Go ahead, show me where I'm wrong and I'll apologize.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Ok then, show me one post of yours where you write anything that be construed as caring about the needless death of those hundreds of thousands of innocent people, if you actually have one.

Why? It is irrelevant.

I don't really care, I'm just curious if you can back up your claim in that you barely hinted that I might be wrong.

You have absolutely no idea what constitutes a logical fallacy, do you? Either you don't understand what I'm talking about, or you are playing stupid in order to create a diversion. I suspect the former as I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Go ahead, show me where I'm wrong and I'll apologize.

No need, you don't seem to understand my point and any further explanation would obviously be futile in light of this failing. You're not alone, most truthers suffer from this lack of understanding regarding logical and informal fallacies.

 

[Mark F]

Quit playing these games... Playing dumb on mundane things destroys what little credibility you have on more complex topics.

Original claim: most "conspiracy theories" (aside the aliens and unicorns, obviously) given enough time turns out to be conspiracy fact.

Then when called on that I provided a list of about 12 conspiracy facts that began as conspiracy theory.

You wanted me to go over every one; I chose just the top one because you've got a track record.

Then, I told you the generic process; the first gulf of Tonkin incident happened, then the second incident was used to start the war. When the troops came back they said there was no second incident, which because "rumours" that there was no second incident, and finally it became a conspiracy theory about the second incident.

NOW, some 30 years later the tapes were declassified proving that there was no second incident, that it was a fabrication for justification.

You asked for sources, which I provided, even though you claimed to have the transcript of the audio... And now you want to backpedal, but forgot how far you had to back pedal to get around the fact that you are, as usual, proven wrong.

So you are claiming the 4 August event did not occur at all? That USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy just uneventfully sailed about the Gulf of Tonking without incident? That ELINT operators aboard Maddox did not intercept radio traffic which they (incorrectly) interpreted as plans for a second attack? That radar and sonar operators aboard both vessels did not report possible hostile contacts? That lookouts did not report sighting possible contacts? That guns aboard both vessels did not engage in a 4 hour gun battle with what they believed were hostile targets?

Is that what your claim is, that all of the above was fabricated?

 

[Bob0627]

Why?

Because I know I'm right and you're full of it. You don't care and never showed you did.

It is irrelevant.

I know it's irrelevant to you, I already said it was.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So you are claiming the 4 August event did not occur at all? That USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy just uneventfully sailed about the Gulf of Tonking without incident? That ELINT operators aboard Maddox did not intercept radio traffic which they (incorrectly) interpreted as plans for a second attack? That radar and sonar operators aboard both vessels did not report possible hostile contacts? That lookouts did not report sighting possible contacts? That guns aboard both vessels did not engage in a 4 hour gun battle with what they believed were hostile targets?

Is that what your claim is, that all of the above was fabricated?

That's what the sailors said when they got home... And now confirmed by the president discussing what to say to fabricate it, and that an investigation would tie the two together and provide justification.

For someone claiming to have read the transcript of the conversation, you are shockingly oblivious to what was said within.

 

[Mark F]

That's what the sailors said when they got home... And now confirmed by the president discussing what to say to fabricate it, and that an investigation would tie the two together and provide justification.

For someone claiming to have read the transcript of the conversation, you are shockingly oblivious to what was said within.

Is that what the sailors said, that they just sailed around peacefully on 4 August and absolutely nothing of interest happened? Is that your final answer? YES or NO only please. No explanations required.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Is that what the sailors said, that they just sailed around peacefully on 4 August and absolutely nothing of interest happened? Is that your final answer? YES or NO only please. No explanations required.

What's your game here? Make your point or concede the facts.

 

[Mark F]

What's your game here? Make your point or concede the facts.

My game is to stop your vagaries and evasions and get to the point. It should be quite obvious I am trying to clarify precisely what your claim is to avoid any confusion over what is being discussed and thus wasting a lot of time. Therefore I asked a series of very precise questions aimed at determining precisely what it is you are claiming. You could have saved us a 2 days and about 2 dozen posts by not playing your usual games.

Now then, the question posed in post #247, YES or NO?

 

[Jango]

My game is to stop your vagaries and evasions and get to the point. It should be quite obvious I am trying to clarify precisely what your claim is to avoid any confusion over what is being discussed and thus wasting a lot of time. Therefore I asked a series of very precise questions aimed at determining precisely what it is you are claiming. You could have saved us a 2 days and about 2 dozen posts by not playing your usual games.

Now then, the question posed in post #247, YES or NO?

At this point, ultimately, what difference does it make? MILLIONS of people died and many have been killed after the fighting stopped because of unexploded ordnance and chemical agents used to tame the undergrowth. Countries were devastated. The homeland internal dissent in the U.S. was extreme. Our military had no chance of winning the War from the second they conceptualized their strategy & scheme. Our military and spies were demoralized. The VA left many combat veterans out in the wind. Americans learned in great deal that their government not only lies to them about the War but spies on them too and will use water cannons, nightsticks, live ammunition & German-Shepherds to silence organized dissent. And even though we dropped more ordnance than all theaters of World War II, WE STILL ****ING LOST! The Pentagon bean-counters HAD KNOWN that the U.S. WOULD LOSE for a while before we ran out of dodge which resulted in more inhuman atrocities.

The Vietnam War should have never happened. Period. The depressingly sad part is that voices objected to the War from the get-go but were drowned out and silenced by the Hawks who wanted a War be it for security, strategy or own self-interest.