Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

Todd D. wrote: Please stop answering questions with questions.
It's called the Socratic Method..

It's the best method yet devised by the human mind at arriving at the Truth.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Damn Todd! You stole my thunder! MO is so hell bent on whining about this guy that he doesn't even realize it means he is supporting the official story, just a cover up on Able Danger. :roll: You think that b/c there is a cover-up of Able Danger that that confirms the official story. :? This simply shows your inability to think.I don't support the official theory,I support getting everything out in the open.Big difference.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Todd D. wrote: Please stop answering questions with questions.
It's called the Socratic Method..

It's the best method yet devised by the human mind at arriving at the Truth.

It is also a cheap copout by those who don't have the answers and don't want to have to try and debate the topic, but want to try and appear smart, so just keep asking lameassed questions.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Todd D. wrote: Please stop answering questions with questions.
It's called the Socratic Method..

It's the best method yet devised by the human mind at arriving at the Truth.

It is also a cheap copout by those who don't have the answers and don't want to have to try and debate the topic, but want to try and appear smart, so just keep asking lameassed questions.
So tell me, Patriot, why do you feel this way? :lol:

[Mighty Oak]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Todd D. wrote: Please stop answering questions with questions.
It's called the Socratic Method..

It's the best method yet devised by the human mind at arriving at the Truth.

It is also a cheap copout by those who don't have the answers and don't want to have to try and debate the topic, but want to try and appear smart, so just keep asking lameassed questions.
So tell me, Patriot, why do you feel this way? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: It's called the Socratic Method..

Trouble is, it is a debating system for moral and philosophical issues - Not matters where facts are involved

[Patriot911]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: It's called the Socratic Method..

Trouble is, it is a debating system for moral and philosophical issues - Not matters where facts are involved

Unless used as a copout by someone who has no answers and can't debate the topic.

[Snake]

Elections are coming up in November, I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

[JohnnyQ]

Kamel wrote: Elections are coming up in November, I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

:think:

[Patriot911]

I doubt this has anything to do with the elections since I haven't seen anyone blaming one party over the other. It is more along the lines of failures in the intelligence community. I haven't seen any political ads referencing Able Danger.

[Snake]

Just a guess. A kind of thing like this would be a decent peice of propaganda

[Patriot911]

Kamel wrote: Just a guess. A kind of thing like this would be a decent peice of propaganda

It would be if it were a little more cut and dried, a little more damning, and easily blamed on one party and not the other. Personally I think it shows more egg to be on the Democrat side of the aisle than on the Republican which is probably why it isn't being made an issue.

[Norrin Radd]

Todd D. wrote: Please stop answering questions with questions. The fact is that, according to this congressperson, Able Danger identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as Al-Qaeda cells living in New York City more than a year before the attacks, and that information is being covered up. That's an entirely reasonable and plausible theory, 9/11 DID represent a catastrophic failure as it pertains to the Intelligence Community. HOWEVER, this congresspersons own words contradict the "Inside Job" theory. He indicates that he, like most sane people, believes that Atta and the others were the hijackers of 9/11. He not once, NOT ONCE, implicates the Government in carrying out 9/11, only that they are covering up the Intelligence Failures that unwittingly allowed it to happen.

Covering up intelligence failures that INTENTIONALLY allowed it to happen?

If the coverup is true and I belive it is, then isn't it at least POSSIBLE that 911 was intentionally allowed to happen to further agendas like Afghanistan and Iraq?

I believe the larger percentage of conspiracy theorists believe that 911 was allowed to happen and not that the US govenrment was involved int he planning and execution of the attacks.

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: Todd D. wrote: Please stop answering questions with questions. The fact is that, according to this congressperson, Able Danger identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as Al-Qaeda cells living in New York City more than a year before the attacks, and that information is being covered up. That's an entirely reasonable and plausible theory, 9/11 DID represent a catastrophic failure as it pertains to the Intelligence Community. HOWEVER, this congresspersons own words contradict the "Inside Job" theory. He indicates that he, like most sane people, believes that Atta and the others were the hijackers of 9/11. He not once, NOT ONCE, implicates the Government in carrying out 9/11, only that they are covering up the Intelligence Failures that unwittingly allowed it to happen.

Covering up intelligence failures that INTENTIONALLY allowed it to happen?
Bullsh!t. Nothing that Able Danger uncovered was in reference to 9/11. Able Danger uncovered that Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers were Al Qaeda operatives. That's all.

Norrin Radd wrote: If the coverup is true and I belive it is, then isn't it at least POSSIBLE that 911 was intentionally allowed to happen to further agendas like Afghanistan and Iraq?
You believe EVERYTHING is a coverup. :roll: But considering that Able Danger identified Atta and the other three hijackers in 1999, how did the Bush administration cover it up when they wouldn't even be in power until two years later? Or are you saying the Democrats also had an agenda to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and both the Republicans and Democrats had separate plans to allow 9/11 to happen by both parties suppressing Able Danger?

Norrin Radd wrote: I believe the larger percentage of conspiracy theorists believe that 911 was allowed to happen and not that the US govenrment was involved int he planning and execution of the attacks.
Bullsh!t. Pure, unadulterated bullsh!t. How did WTC 7 fall? How did the towers fall? What happened at the Pentagon? EVERY PART of the conspriacy theory involves the government having direct involvement in the events of 9/11. Standing there and trying to tell us you and most of the other 9/11 deniers don't believe the government was involved in the planning and execution is the ultimate in dishonesty because it is SO OBVIOUSLY not the case. And here you try and tell us you're one of the honest ones. :rofl: You must really think everyone else is ultra gullible to swallow that enormous lie.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: I believe the larger percentage of conspiracy theorists believe that 911 was allowed to happen and not that the US govenrment was involved int he planning and execution of the attacks.

I tend to find the exact opposite - and the theories are getting stranger and stranger.

I do believe with the collapse of the Loose Changers that things may get a little more rational.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Todd D. wrote: Please stop answering questions with questions. The fact is that, according to this congressperson, Able Danger identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as Al-Qaeda cells living in New York City more than a year before the attacks, and that information is being covered up. That's an entirely reasonable and plausible theory, 9/11 DID represent a catastrophic failure as it pertains to the Intelligence Community. HOWEVER, this congresspersons own words contradict the "Inside Job" theory. He indicates that he, like most sane people, believes that Atta and the others were the hijackers of 9/11. He not once, NOT ONCE, implicates the Government in carrying out 9/11, only that they are covering up the Intelligence Failures that unwittingly allowed it to happen.

Covering up intelligence failures that INTENTIONALLY allowed it to happen?
Bullsh!t. Nothing that Able Danger uncovered was in reference to 9/11. Able Danger uncovered that Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers were Al Qaeda operatives. That's all.

Norrin Radd wrote: If the coverup is true and I belive it is, then isn't it at least POSSIBLE that 911 was intentionally allowed to happen to further agendas like Afghanistan and Iraq?
You believe EVERYTHING is a coverup. :roll: But considering that Able Danger identified Atta and the other three hijackers in 1999, how did the Bush administration cover it up when they wouldn't even be in power until two years later? Or are you saying the Democrats also had an agenda to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and both the Republicans and Democrats had separate plans to allow 9/11 to happen by both parties suppressing Able Danger?

Norrin Radd wrote: I believe the larger percentage of conspiracy theorists believe that 911 was allowed to happen and not that the US govenrment was involved int he planning and execution of the attacks.
Bullsh!t. Pure, unadulterated bullsh!t. How did WTC 7 fall? How did the towers fall? What happened at the Pentagon? EVERY PART of the conspriacy theory involves the government having direct involvement in the events of 9/11. Standing there and trying to tell us you and most of the other 9/11 deniers don't believe the government was involved in the planning and execution is the ultimate in dishonesty because it is SO OBVIOUSLY not the case. And here you try and tell us you're one of the honest ones. :rofl: You must really think everyone else is ultra gullible to swallow that enormous lie.

I have never once said, or implied that the government was involved in the planning and/or execution of the attacks. I believe the same thing concerning the OKC bombing, that the government may have allowed it to happen, but was not involved in the planning, or execution.

Because I am honest, I also admit I could be wrong and there was not foreknowledge, even though there is some evidence which does show prior knowledge.

So, what am I sure of concerning OKC?

What I am sure of is that the US government covered up numerous facts about the bombing for some unknown reason. There were obviously more than 2 people involved and why the government covered up this fact is beyond me.

My beliefs are very similar for 911, EXCEPT I am unsure of anything except for what I watched on T.V. live. As I have stated numerous times, the 200 coincidences are a lot to swallow and this is where my questions arise. The Pentagon stuff is interesting, but I am not seeing convincing proof from either side of the debate.

What I find most disturbing, as I have stated before, is the military response. You have already given your opinions on the response, but I do not buy it. IN MY OPINION, there is no way any plane should have been able to hit the Pentagon 40 minutes after the 2nd tower was hit. NO WAY, NO HOW.

I know numerous people in the military and I know the training that NORAD has done and I know in my heart that something, or someone intentionally prevented a proper US military response to the hijackings.

I can't prove a coverup for 911, there are way more questions than answers. It does not have even close to the evidence for a coverup as TWA 800 ,or the OKC bombing, but there are way too many questions to simply buy the government's story, especially since OKC, TWA 800 and WACO were not all that long ago.


RON PAUL ONCE SAID.........

So, on that TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be any federal police, according to the Constitution. Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years. We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--talk about an unconstitutional agency--rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents. The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas. Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians. After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people--men, women, children, and babies - were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves?

A new documentary- -Waco: The Rules of Engagement- may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated. Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing.

In my r~interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge- especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby- caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone. Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and- of course- the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?) I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that eithermy many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial. But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get anything right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers).

[Free Thinkr]

Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: How is this new news? Curt Weldon has been at this for years.

What I want to know is what story do you believe? Curt Weldon's, the governments, or the conspiracy theories? Maybe you should go back and read the 1st post.Are high this morning?You don't seem to be your normal self.

I just want to know which story you believe. You seem to believe multiple stories and I just want to nail down which one you believe.
You realize that the government has already come up w/ 5 conflicting explanations of why WTC7 fell... if you believe the government lie, then by definition it's *you* who believe multiple stories.. :wink:

See, this is where 9/11 deniers show just how ignorant they are. They find one theory on one thing and never change their mind on anything even though other theories they believe contradict the first theory.

When a normal sane person changes what they believe as new information comes along, it blows the 9/11 deniers' minds because to them it now appears we believe in multiple stories. Their little hard wired brains are incapable of understanding the concept of changing a theory based on the facts that come in. Since they only believe the "facts" that back up their theories and ignore all other facts that discredit their theory, the concept of altering the theory based on new facts is totally foreign to them. In their minds, why alter a theory when in their mind all the facts fit the theory? Denial is such a wonderful concept to them. Makes life so much easier when you don't have to think. ;-)
Not only that, but notice the implication that you believe the "government" version? I don't know for sure about you, but I suspect you're like me, and simply believe whatever the evidence points to; whether this aligns with the "government" version or not is wholly immaterial in my mind.

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: I have never once said, or implied that the government was involved in the planning and/or execution of the attacks. I believe the same thing concerning the OKC bombing, that the government may have allowed it to happen, but was not involved in the planning, or execution.

So you believe Flight 77 went into the Pentagon? That the WTC 1 & 2 collapsed without explosives? That WTC 7 fell due to structural damage and heat related structural failure? That Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville? Because when you state that these things happened according to the conspiracy theories, you ARE implicating the government because only the government would have the means and ability to pull something like that off.

[Patriot911]

Free Thinkr wrote: Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: How is this new news? Curt Weldon has been at this for years.

What I want to know is what story do you believe? Curt Weldon's, the governments, or the conspiracy theories? Maybe you should go back and read the 1st post.Are high this morning?You don't seem to be your normal self.

I just want to know which story you believe. You seem to believe multiple stories and I just want to nail down which one you believe.
You realize that the government has already come up w/ 5 conflicting explanations of why WTC7 fell... if you believe the government lie, then by definition it's *you* who believe multiple stories.. :wink:

See, this is where 9/11 deniers show just how ignorant they are. They find one theory on one thing and never change their mind on anything even though other theories they believe contradict the first theory.

When a normal sane person changes what they believe as new information comes along, it blows the 9/11 deniers' minds because to them it now appears we believe in multiple stories. Their little hard wired brains are incapable of understanding the concept of changing a theory based on the facts that come in. Since they only believe the "facts" that back up their theories and ignore all other facts that discredit their theory, the concept of altering the theory based on new facts is totally foreign to them. In their minds, why alter a theory when in their mind all the facts fit the theory? Denial is such a wonderful concept to them. Makes life so much easier when you don't have to think. ;-)
Not only that, but notice the implication that you believe the "government" version? I don't know for sure about you, but I suspect you're like me, and simply believe whatever the evidence points to; whether this aligns with the "government" version or not is wholly immaterial in my mind.

If the evidence supported the government was behind 9/11, I would be first in line for prosecuting those responsible and so would the rest of America. However, the evidence supports the government story, and the CTers have failed to produce any evidence convincing enough to persuade anyone above a lukewarm intelligence level that all the "official" evidence is wrong and the CTers are right.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: How is this new news? Curt Weldon has been at this for years.

What I want to know is what story do you believe? Curt Weldon's, the governments, or the conspiracy theories? Maybe you should go back and read the 1st post.Are high this morning?You don't seem to be your normal self.

I just want to know which story you believe. You seem to believe multiple stories and I just want to nail down which one you believe.
You realize that the government has already come up w/ 5 conflicting explanations of why WTC7 fell... if you believe the government lie, then by definition it's *you* who believe multiple stories.. :wink:

See, this is where 9/11 deniers show just how ignorant they are. They find one theory on one thing and never change their mind on anything even though other theories they believe contradict the first theory.

When a normal sane person changes what they believe as new information comes along, it blows the 9/11 deniers' minds because to them it now appears we believe in multiple stories. Their little hard wired brains are incapable of understanding the concept of changing a theory based on the facts that come in. Since they only believe the "facts" that back up their theories and ignore all other facts that discredit their theory, the concept of altering the theory based on new facts is totally foreign to them. In their minds, why alter a theory when in their mind all the facts fit the theory? Denial is such a wonderful concept to them. Makes life so much easier when you don't have to think. ;-)
Not only that, but notice the implication that you believe the "government" version? I don't know for sure about you, but I suspect you're like me, and simply believe whatever the evidence points to; whether this aligns with the "government" version or not is wholly immaterial in my mind.

If the evidence supported the government was behind 9/11, I would be first in line for prosecuting those responsible and so would the rest of America. However, the evidence supports the government story, and the CTers have failed to produce any evidence convincing enough to persuade anyone above a lukewarm intelligence level that all the "official" evidence is wrong and the CTers are right. Here you go again,attacking people's intelligence.Would you like me to list all of these not so intelligent people who believe at a minimum that the government let it happen?Professors too numerous to list them all,ex CIA agents,People working in the Bush administration and many more.So keep on talking about how stupid we all are,it only shows how disingenuous you really are.