• 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!

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

BmanMcfly said:
Gah.. Typo... LBJ... My bad.

Anyway, if you weren't so busy playing dumb you could have made the correction without my help.

But then you start lying to top it off.

Seriously, you quoted the link to the audio to tell me that I did not link to the audio, and you figure that makes you somehow honest.

You are determined to make me go back some 20-30 posts and start over while you play dumb all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

I never said you didn't link to the audio. I said you never provided context. For example, when did this conversation take place in relation to the incidents of 2 and 4 August, 1964 and specifically what was said that supports your contention that POTUS ordered SecDef to fake the events of 4 August. Instead of that you took the lazy CT route and after posting a poorly defined claim you supported it with 'listen to this audio and figure it our yourself because I can't explain it.'

But now we have a separate thread to discuss all this in.
 
Mark F said:
I never said you didn't link to the audio. I said you never provided context. For example, when did this conversation take place in relation to the incidents of 2 and 4 August, 1964 and specifically what was said that supports your contention that POTUS ordered SecDef to fake the events of 4 August. Instead of that you took the lazy CT route and after posting a poorly defined claim you supported it with 'listen to this audio and figure it our yourself because I can't explain it.'

But now we have a separate thread to discuss all this in.
Click to expand...

Post 219 liar.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Post 219 liar.
Click to expand...

Here is verbatim what I said in Post #219. Please bold the part of the text where I said you did not post the audio link or retract your dishonest insult.

And you are still resorting to insults rather than supporting your vaguely framed claim. This is your tell. Whenever you do this - and you do it a lot - we know you're desperate.

So, please kindly support your original claim, preferably also with clarification as to what it is you are really claiming, or apologize for being a putz and we can move on to the OP.
Click to expand...
 
Mark F said:
Here is verbatim what I said in Post #219. Please bold the part of the text where I said you did not post the audio link or retract your dishonest insult.
Click to expand...

Exactly... and what was post 218?? The link to the audio.

So you double down on your method, and get the thumbs up.

Can't help but laugh.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Exactly... and what was post 218?? The link to the audio.

So you double down on your method, and get the thumbs up.

Can't help but laugh.
Click to expand...

I never said you didn't link to the audio. I said you never provided context. Here is verbatim what I said in Post #219. Please bold the part of the text where I said you did not post the audio link or retract your dishonest insult.

And you are still resorting to insults rather than supporting your vaguely framed claim. This is your tell. Whenever you do this - and you do it a lot - we know you're desperate.

So, please kindly support your original claim, preferably also with clarification as to what it is you are really claiming, or apologize for being a putz and we can move on to the OP.
Click to expand...

Note: Merely posting a link is not "supporting your claim". Particularly in this case as we know nothing contained within the link has anything to do with your claim.
 
Still waiting.
 
I am very pleased and honored to announce that my next guest will be NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake. The 9/11 Commission barely investigated the NSA. I am very much looking forward to this interview.

thomaspicture.webp

Here are the first 10 shows of "We Were Lied To About 9/11."

Jenna Orkin - The Environmental Impact of 9/11
This Weeks Guest on 'We Were Lied to About 9/11': Jenna Orkin. Your Host: Jon Gold - Standing up! Speaking out!

Mickey Huff - How The Corporate Media Has Treated Those Who Question 9/11
We Were Lied to About 9/11-Episode 2-Mickey Huff - Standing up! Speaking out!

Erik Larson - The classification and declassification of documents
We Were Lied to About 9/11- Episode 3- Erik Larson - Standing up! Speaking out!

Ray Nowosielski - The Making Of 9/11: Press For Truth & Who Is Rich Blee?
We Were Lied to About 9/11: Episode 4-Ray Nowosielski - Standing up! Speaking out!

Coleen Rowley - The Importance Of Whistleblowers
We Were Lied to About 9/11 - Episode 5- Coleen Rowley - Standing up! Speaking out!

Lorie Van Auken - The 9/11 Commission
We Were Lied to About 9/11-Episode 6-Lorie Van Auken - Standing up! Speaking out!

Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - How Governments use terrorism as a proxy
We Were Lied to About 9/11 Episode 7-Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - Standing up! Speaking out!

Cindy Sheehan - Soldier & Civilian Deaths
We Were Lied to About 9/11-Episode 8-Cindy Sheehan - Standing up! Speaking out!

Michael Springmann - Hijacker Visas
We Were Lied to About 9/11-Episode 9-Michael Springmann - Standing up! Speaking out!

Paul Church - Possible Foreign Involvement
We Were Lied to About 9/11-Episode 10-Paul Church* - Standing up! Speaking out!
 
Was my article debunked?
 
Gold9472 said:
Was my article debunked?
Click to expand...
What is there to debunk?

The OP to this thread started with this statement:

Bob0627 said:
By Jon Gold
8/9/2014

For a long time now, I've been trying to figure out just exactly what the NSA knew about the hijackers and 9/11.
Click to expand...
...followed by a lengthy collection of snippets of information which appear to have been part of something you wrote. BUT non of that additional material is a claim.

And the OP was posted by Bob0627 who neither made a claim of his own nor attempted to identify a claim other than what I quoted above.

I think most members would accept our claim "I've been trying to figure out just exactly what the NSA knew about the hijackers and 9/11." as true.

There is neither evidence nor reason for anyone to disagree. I personally have no doubt that you are interested in the topic. But that does not constitute a claim warranting or calling for "debunking".
 
Gold.

What you posted is typical interviews from people who support the idea that the official report is totally wrong.

Ever noticed how wording is done and spoken during the interviews? "Possible foreign involvement". Its the what if game and leaves a way out for the person speaking. The use of "possible" is their out. Or speakers will make statements of fire has never before collapsed a building like it happened on 9/11, so it must have been controlled demolition. Never mentioning the damage done to the buildings by impact or debris impact.

The challenge you face is one could post links to articles or interviews that have the opposite view of what you posted.

If A&E has 100% proof/evidence that NSA committed fraud, or the concept of fire induced collapse after impact or debris impact is wrong. They are free to take it up with the courts.
Yet, all the effort is into trying to show the fire induced collapse is wrong, there has been very little if any effort to show how a CD was done.

Each explanation should stand on its own merits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom