• 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!

Was 9/11 Really A Surprise Attack?

Ahh ok so Bush/Cheney were controlling Bin Laden, they were in turn controlled by the Jews who of course are just puppets of the Freemasons. The Freemasons are just the footsoldiers of the illuminati who work for space vampires from Mars? Did I get it right yet?

Close. You forgot the lizard people from Andromeda that control the martian vampires... and the lizard people are jointly controlled by Nessie and Bigfoot.
 
Ahh ok so Bush/Cheney were controlling Bin Laden? Did I get it right yet?

up to that point, yes... But even that is an oversimplification of the reality.
 
Six of them each made separate statements.... If you care to find them they are available.

The context was clear with each member on where they stood, I've worded things carefully for this exact reason.

Yet your inability to show then proves you have NOTHING really ... just empty claims.

It is YOUR contention that these people found fault with the report itself ... it is therefore NOT my job to fact-check YOUR claims.

Show EXACTLY where they state any such thing B'man ... show WHERE the state it was the actual report they had issue with ... for it is beyond clear they all stated issue with the PROCESS of getting to the information and NOT the conclusion of the report itself.

They all STAND by the actual report but had issue with GETTING to the conclusion ... that is an entirely different context than what you are trying so desperately to imply ... so since it is YOUR contention that these people think the actual report wrong then it is YOUR job to provide the proof of that.

CAN you do that B'man ???

Course you can't !!!
 
Yet your inability to show then proves you have NOTHING really ... just empty claims.

It is YOUR contention that these people found fault with the report itself ... it is therefore NOT my job to fact-check YOUR claims.

Show EXACTLY where they state any such thing B'man ... show WHERE the state it was the actual report they had issue with ... for it is beyond clear they all stated issue with the PROCESS of getting to the information and NOT the conclusion of the report itself.

They all STAND by the actual report but had issue with GETTING to the conclusion ... that is an entirely different context than what you are trying so desperately to imply ... so since it is YOUR contention that these people think the actual report wrong then it is YOUR job to provide the proof of that.

CAN you do that B'man ???

Course you can't !!!

Ya, so you can ONCE AGAIN claim that their words are taken out of context... Even showing the whole articles.

Even this new rebuttal changes nothing about what they each said.

I've sourced everything so many times, willing ignorance is all that keeps people believing the government, and believing that government is their best friend.
 
Ya, so you can ONCE AGAIN claim that their words are taken out of context... Even showing the whole articles.

What an incredibly weak argument ... try me B'man ... SHOW what they said ... the "whole articles" and let's see.

Now is your chance to make me eat my words ... PROVIDE WHAT they actually said and we shall see whom is out of context ... try me !!!

Even this new rebuttal changes nothing about what they each said.

So go ahead and PROVE what they each said then ... have the courage to stand by what you claim ... provide WHAT they each said and we see if they actually did mean the report itself ... shall we, surely you are secure enough to test what you claim by providing their actual words then ???

I've sourced everything so many times, willing ignorance is all that keeps people believing the government, and believing that government is their best friend.

Yet I have no reason to believe YOUR government though B'man ... it ain't mine, and I frankly don't give a damm what they say ... in the end it is ONLY you whom displays the willfullness to avoid reality, facts and science.
 
What an incredibly weak argument ... try me B'man ... SHOW what they said ... the "whole articles" and let's see.

Now is your chance to make me eat my words ... PROVIDE WHAT they actually said and we shall see whom is out of context ... try me !!!



So go ahead and PROVE what they each said then ... have the courage to stand by what you claim ... provide WHAT they each said and we see if they actually did mean the report itself ... shall we, surely you are secure enough to test what you claim by providing their actual words then ???



Yet I have no reason to believe YOUR government though B'man ... it ain't mine, and I frankly don't give a damm what they say ... in the end it is ONLY you whom displays the willfullness to avoid reality, facts and science.

You mean you haven't read them recently enough?

Since you want those links so bad, well, google is your friend, then you can demonstrate how those 6 people speaking out against the commission report were actually speaking out in support for the report.

Mind you, this is directed towards the person that LITERALLY said the sky was not blue, so, we have to consider the source as well...
 
You mean you haven't read them recently enough?

Since you want those links so bad, well, google is your friend, then you can demonstrate how those 6 people speaking out against the commission report were actually speaking out in support for the report.

So, still squirming out of providing sources for your own claims ... you really must know then that by providing them will clearly show how wrong you read them.

How cowardly of you B'man.

Mind you, this is directed towards the person that LITERALLY said the sky was not blue, so, we have to consider the source as well...

So, you still don't understand simple science either then, you still don't get RAYLEIGH SCATTERING ... for the sky "literally" is NOT blue ... we humans just PERCIEVE it as blue due to the limited wavelengths our eyes are physically capable of seeing.

Why is the sky Blue?
 
So, still squirming out of providing sources for your own claims ... you really must know then that by providing them will clearly show how wrong you read them.

How cowardly of you B'man.



So, you still don't understand simple science either then, you still don't get RAYLEIGH SCATTERING ... for the sky "literally" is NOT blue ... we humans just PERCIEVE it as blue due to the limited wavelengths our eyes are physically capable of seeing.

Why is the sky Blue?

Lol, I've literally put the sources out there for you half a dozen times, If not more, then you use the same fallacious arguments... Sometimes even making the point stronger against your point.

Example; to defend your point that the sky is not blue, you put a link sayin "WHY IS THE SKY BLUE"!!!!

Since you're so heart set on proving the official story true, even though the few of you here still posting are the only ones that still believe the official fairy tale. Why not just prove the case that the impossible official story is the only possible answer??

Then you can expose the twisted logic required to actually believe that nonsense story... Do us all a favor, and show the fallacy that you actually believe.
 
Lol, I've literally put the sources out there for you half a dozen times, If not more, then you use the same fallacious arguments... Sometimes even making the point stronger against your point.

So you really expect me to look back through hundreds of posts to get YOUR links ... what a cheek !!!

YOUR claim ... YOUR responsibility ... YOU provide them then.

Stop trying to squirm out ... it is weak.

Example; to defend your point that the sky is not blue, you put a link sayin "WHY IS THE SKY BLUE"!!!!

Nope ... just to educate you for you had obviously forgotten the science I showed you before.

But well done on the petulant whinge about me being able to actually (unlike you) substanciate MY claims !!!

Since you're so heart set on proving the official story true, even though the few of you here still posting are the only ones that still believe the official fairy tale. Why not just prove the case that the impossible official story is the only possible answer??

Then you can expose the twisted logic required to actually believe that nonsense story... Do us all a favor, and show the fallacy that you actually believe.

Reality check B'man ... DaTwoof is dying ... and dying BECAUSE you have nothing in the end.

You really are the ONLY resident truther here ... and you are endlessly going round the same old tatty roundabout of yore ... never going anywhere and becoming more peevish as time goes on ... sorry, but you are just an echo of an old tired tale that nobody buys.
 
So you really expect me to look back through hundreds of posts to get YOUR links ... what a cheek !!!

YOUR claim ... YOUR responsibility ... YOU provide them then.

Stop trying to squirm out ... it is weak.

No squirming, I know the fallacies you got loaded and ready for those links...

If you care that much about what they said, google is your friend.



Nope ... just to educate you for you had obviously forgotten the science I showed you before.

But well done on the petulant whinge about me being able to actually (unlike you) substanciate MY claims !!!

Ya, you look up to the sky, it's blue on a sunny day, not in your world though... And you prove it's not blue by linking to the question of why the sky is blue.

This is simply the perfect demonstration of the circular logic you use...


Reality check B'man ... DaTwoof is dying ... and dying BECAUSE you have nothing in the end.

You really are the ONLY resident truther here ... and you are endlessly going round the same old tatty roundabout of yore ... never going anywhere and becoming more peevish as time goes on ... sorry, but you are just an echo of an old tired tale that nobody buys.

Of course the "9-11 truth" movement seems as though it's dying because the only "people" left still pushing the official version like this are bots programmed with shoddy logic.

You see, the lies need to be reapplied continuously or it loses it's effect, whereas the truth remains the same and holds its value.

You do realize that it was within the hour that it came out that this aurora theatre shooting was done by more than one person.... People know now that the government lies uncontrollably, even in cases where the truth would suit them better.

You want proof :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/25/gun-sales-colorado.html

This was IN SPITE of the huge push for gun control in the face of this tragedy (timed within a week of the potential signing of a UN gun treaty). If one person in that theatre had been armed, well, the outcome could have been very different, and the people are seeing through the lies, now faster than ever previously in the wakes of similar high profile tragedies.
 
View attachment 67132122

Pretty much sums up my response

Ya, like other "anti-truther"s you can't have an honest response. Don't worry, I'm used to it.

You'd think people would have more respect than to joke about the tragic death of thousands...
 
Hello all, thought I'd make my first post on a subject that I've spent years discussing in other forums in the past. So, without further ado...

No squirming, I know the fallacies you got loaded and ready for those links...

If you care that much about what they said, google is your friend.

Bman, I'm a firm believer that 9/11 was an inside job, but I agree with I Gaze on his "your claim, your responsibility". Maybe he's got a bunch of fallacies loaded and ready for those links, but fallacies can be pointed out, but they can't be pointed out if the discussion ends now for lack of things to discuss.
 
Last edited:
Be wary.

Controlled opposition is not simply relegated to 9/11 Truth.

Your fav "alternative" or "progressive" news sites can be a front for Big Brother as well.

Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States.

OCCUPY: Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States.

I am not worried :)

Well - its still good to be constantly aware of it as Barrie Zwicker says in this excerpt from his book, "Towers of Deception."

TowersofDeceptionCOVERART.JPG


"There are other possible, and possibly overlapping, explanations for near-uniform 9/11 blindness on the part of the Left leaders and alternative media. These lead back, in part, to the CIA. Left media increasingly have been seeking and receiving funding from the likes of the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and MacArthur Foundation. Bob Feldman of San Francisco has been a tireless researcher of Left-foundation connections. His articles paint a picture rarely mentioned because both Left and Right have an interest in perpetuating the paradigm and keeping quiet about it."

The Left Gatekeepers (May 4, 2008)
 
Well - its still good to be constantly aware of it as Barrie Zwicker says in this excerpt from his book, "Towers of Deception."

TowersofDeceptionCOVERART.JPG


"There are other possible, and possibly overlapping, explanations for near-uniform 9/11 blindness on the part of the Left leaders and alternative media. These lead back, in part, to the CIA. Left media increasingly have been seeking and receiving funding from the likes of the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and MacArthur Foundation. Bob Feldman of San Francisco has been a tireless researcher of Left-foundation connections. His articles paint a picture rarely mentioned because both Left and Right have an interest in perpetuating the paradigm and keeping quiet about it."

The Left Gatekeepers (May 4, 2008)

I saw Barrie Zwicker's DVD (including in Towers of Deception); was really good.
 
Ya, like other "anti-truther"s you can't have an honest response. Don't worry, I'm used to it.

You'd think people would have more respect than to joke about the tragic death of thousands...

I agree the death of thousands was tragic and to try and pretend it was an inside job done by the American govt is worse than a joke, it is an insult to all those who died and their families. I am not the one disrespecting them with outlandish and downright dishonest lies about the events. I am merely laughing at those that do.
 
I agree the death of thousands was tragic and to try and pretend it was an inside job done by the American govt is worse than a joke, it is an insult to all those who died and their families. I am not the one disrespecting them with outlandish and downright dishonest lies about the events. I am merely laughing at those that do.

You do realize that it's nearly a 50-50 split amongst the victims family members that are "truthers"?

To me the biggest insult is that the investigation didn't even answer any of the key questions, like who failed at their job and should be fired? Offering a report that uses small truths to sell the lies...

Unfortunately, we will never know the whole truth about what did happen in all respects... But there's enough evidence to say that without a doubt it did not happen as described in the investigative reports by the government.

The funny part is is to really examine the official version from start to finish and even a retard kid hearing that story would be looking at you and say "there's a few holes in that story... Listen, I'm not that retarded."
 
Hello all, thought I'd make my first post on a subject that I've spent years discussing in other forums in the past. So, without further ado...

Bman, I'm a firm believer that 9/11 was an inside job, but I agree with I Gaze on his "your claim, your responsibility". Maybe he's got a bunch of fallacies loaded and ready for those links, but fallacies can be pointed out, but they can't be pointed out if the discussion ends now for lack of things to discuss.

Yes, in most every situation this would be the case... What you missed is the shear number of times that igatb (she) has been shown these same links and Everytime it's the same charge of their statements being out of context...

The main issue being, why would ANY of them criticize their own report??

Now, since you sound interested...

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_cleland.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-commission-members-doubt-official-story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

These are some of the more damning statements made...
 
Yes, in most every situation this would be the case... What you missed is the shear number of times that igatb (she) has been shown these same links and Everytime it's the same charge of their statements being out of context...

The main issue being, why would ANY of them criticize their own report??

Now, since you sound interested...

NOW: Transcript - Frank Sesno talks with Max Cleland | PBS

CNN.com - 9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony - Aug 2, 2006

Prison Planet.com » 9/11 Commission Members Doubt Official Story

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

These are some of the more damning statements made...

Indeed; I'd seen a fair amount of this in the past, although I'm not sure that I'd heard so much from Max Cleland before. Well, thanks for sharing the links.
 
You do realize that it's nearly a 50-50 split amongst the victims family members that are "truthers"?

To me the biggest insult is that the investigation didn't even answer any of the key questions, like who failed at their job and should be fired? Offering a report that uses small truths to sell the lies...

Unfortunately, we will never know the whole truth about what did happen in all respects... But there's enough evidence to say that without a doubt it did not happen as described in the investigative reports by the government.

The funny part is is to really examine the Truther version(S) from start to finish and even a retard kid hearing that story would be looking at you and say "there's a few holes in that story... Listen, I'm not that retarded."

Edited for veracity
 
The following cartoon illustrates Chip Berlet, a conspiracy debunker on the payroll to divide the left. Bertlet has appeared on Maddow and other MSNBC shows, and is a prime example of controlled opposition.

barlet.jpg


.........................................................................notice the man in the back of sled holding "FBI marching orders"



The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited

by James Petras

"the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left. "

"Saunders refutes the claims (made by Hook, Kristol, and Lasky) that the CIA and its friendly foundations provided aid with no strings attached. She demonstrates that "the individuals and institutions subsidized by the CIA were expected to perform as part ... of a propaganda war." The most effective propaganda was defined by the CIA as the kind where "the subject moves in the direction you desire for reasons which he believes to be his own." While the CIA allowed their assets on the "Democratic Left" to prattle occasionally about social reform, it was the "anti-Stalinist" polemics and literary diatribes against Western Marxists and Soviet writers and artists that they were most interested in, funded most generously, and promoted with the greatest visibility. Braden referred to this as the "convergence" between the CIA and the European "Democratic Left" in the fight against communism. The collaboration between the "Democratic Left" and the CIA included strike-breaking in France, informing on Stalinists (Orwell and Hook), and covert smear campaigns to prevent leftist artists from receiving recognition (including Pablo Neruda's bid for a Nobel Prize in 1964."

The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited, by James Petras, 11/99
 
I agree the death of thousands was tragic and to try and pretend it was an inside job done by the American govt is worse than a joke, it is an insult to all those who died and their families. I am not the one disrespecting them with outlandish and downright dishonest lies about the events. I am merely laughing at those that do.

It is an even bigger insult for the Government of the United States to:

use 9/11 as an excuse to spend a trillion a year on war, use 9/11 as an excuse to murder 2 million people in Iraq, to add a huge mammoth bureaucracy of more intel agengies and domestic spying apparatus, when the already mammoth intel bureaucracy is what supposedly failed us in the first place, to sink more American soldiers lives to occupy Afghanistan for what should essentially be a minor covert mission to defeat a very minor enemy, sacrifice the wealth and standard of living of the entire middle class for the benefit of the few very rich oil barons and defense contractors, create more enemies by invading ever more sovereign states using the phony excuse of 'terrorism' every time we Americans turn another nation into rubble, bury generations of Americas children into poverty to perpetuate the permanent war economy, bankrupt states, state and local govmnt employees at the expense of the Pentagon, pollute the earth and our soldiers with toxic depleted uranium weapons causing unknown sicknessness and deformities, and to shred the U.S. Constitution and principles of diplomacy and international law we sacrifice to this sacred cow called Sept. the 11th.
 
It is an even bigger insult for the Government of the United States to:

use 9/11 as an excuse to spend a trillion a year on war, use 9/11 as an excuse to murder 2 million people in Iraq, to add a huge mammoth bureaucracy of more intel agengies and domestic spying apparatus, when the already mammoth intel bureaucracy is what supposedly failed us in the first place, to sink more American soldiers lives to occupy Afghanistan for what should essentially be a minor covert mission to defeat a very minor enemy, sacrifice the wealth and standard of living of the entire middle class for the benefit of the few very rich oil barons and defense contractors, create more enemies by invading ever more sovereign states using the phony excuse of 'terrorism' every time we Americans turn another nation into rubble, bury generations of Americas children into poverty to perpetuate the permanent war economy, bankrupt states, state and local govmnt employees at the expense of the Pentagon, pollute the earth and our soldiers with toxic depleted uranium weapons causing unknown sicknessness and deformities, and to shred the U.S. Constitution and principles of diplomacy and international law we sacrifice to this sacred cow called Sept. the 11th.

I stopped reading after you said they used 9/11 as an excuse to kill 2 million people in Iraq.
Can anyone tell me why do CT people not understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 different countries?
 
How do you know this? I'd like to see a link to this please.

You do realize that it's nearly a 50-50 split amongst the victims family members that are "truthers"?

To me the biggest insult is that the investigation didn't even answer any of the key questions, like who failed at their job and should be fired? Offering a report that uses small truths to sell the lies...

Unfortunately, we will never know the whole truth about what did happen in all respects... But there's enough evidence to say that without a doubt it did not happen as described in the investigative reports by the government.

The funny part is is to really examine the official version from start to finish and even a retard kid hearing that story would be looking at you and say "there's a few holes in that story... Listen, I'm not that retarded."
 
How do you know this? I'd like to see a link to this please.

I don't have any poll on victim family members, though I certainly know that were some victim family members (the family steering committee) that were vehemently opposed to the appointment of Thomas Kean to head the 9/11 Commission. That being said, there are certainly polls that demonstrate that many people, including many Americans, don't buy the official story. Take, for instance, the following Zogby Poll, as mentioned on the wikipedia page Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories:
The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.
The first one was conducted in August 2004, on the eve of a Republican National Convention, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.
 
Back
Top Bottom