Political Crossfire Forums

[NAB]

MG1962 wrote: 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.

Loose Change is also the only reason why we even hear any of the other conspiracies surrounding 911. The "Inside Job" theory was never on the radar until those guys created their obtuse piece of nonsense that went viral thanks to Youtube. The viral nature of the net creates a momentum all it's own, regardless of whether it's true or not.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: 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.

I wasn't attacking people's intelligence, just the evidence CTers present. Hell, I've asked over and over again for a single piece of real evidence and I have yet to see a single person step forward and offer any solid evidence. And if they are believing what you claim is "evidence", then IMHO they really ARE stupid and/or gullible.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: 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.

I wasn't attacking people's intelligence, just the evidence CTers present. Hell, I've asked over and over again for a single piece of real evidence and I have yet to see a single person step forward and offer any solid evidence. And if they are believing what you claim is "evidence", then IMHO they really ARE stupid and/or gullible. To gather evidence,the kind that will hold up in court,you need to investigate it.The Whitewash commission has said that their report is flawed.Help get an investigation and maybe it will go away.I agree that there will be some,no matter what is presented,but if it is a truly independed investigation for all to see,everyone under oathe and all the questions answered then so be it.

[Snake]

Patriot911 wrote: 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. And yet, they can convince a jury that an innocent man is guilty, and vise versa.....

[Norrin Radd]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: 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.

I wasn't attacking people's intelligence, just the evidence CTers present. Hell, I've asked over and over again for a single piece of real evidence and I have yet to see a single person step forward and offer any solid evidence. And if they are believing what you claim is "evidence", then IMHO they really ARE stupid and/or gullible. To gather evidence,the kind that will hold up in court,you need to investigate it.The Whitewash commission has said that their report is flawed.Help get an investigation and maybe it will go away.I agree that there will be some,no matter what is presented,but if it is a truly independed investigation for all to see,everyone under oathe and all the questions answered then so be it.

PENALTY: ILLEGAL USE OF COMMON SENSE.

(Please refrain from using common sense on this forum as some of the people here simply will not understand this type of thinking)

An independent investigation? Are you crazy? State Congressman Charles Key got ripped apart in the media by asking for an independent investigation into OKC. You really think they would allow an independent investigation into 911?

The investigation into 911 was one of the most obvious whitewashes of all time. They didn't even make a good showing like they did for Pearl Harbor and the JFK assasination. The investigation was so poor it is an insult to all those who died and their families.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: 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.

I wasn't attacking people's intelligence, just the evidence CTers present. Hell, I've asked over and over again for a single piece of real evidence and I have yet to see a single person step forward and offer any solid evidence. And if they are believing what you claim is "evidence", then IMHO they really ARE stupid and/or gullible. To gather evidence,the kind that will hold up in court,you need to investigate it.The Whitewash commission has said that their report is flawed.Help get an investigation and maybe it will go away.I agree that there will be some,no matter what is presented,but if it is a truly independed investigation for all to see,everyone under oathe and all the questions answered then so be it.

Several investigations have already been performed. YOU just choose to ignore them. NOTHING found in the investigations have implicated anything more than a terrorist attack. What you want is investigation after investigation until someone comes up with an answer that confirms your pre-conceived notions. Sorry. We shouldn't throw a dime after any investigation without SOMETHING to indicate a new investigation is warranted.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: 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.

I wasn't attacking people's intelligence, just the evidence CTers present. Hell, I've asked over and over again for a single piece of real evidence and I have yet to see a single person step forward and offer any solid evidence. And if they are believing what you claim is "evidence", then IMHO they really ARE stupid and/or gullible.
How do you explain the collapse of WTC7?

Let's start there..

Which of the government's 5 conflicting explanations for the fall do you accept?

Bear in mind that the government's most recent explanation of WTC7 is that explosions had nothing to do w/ it, even though the government is now looking into that possibility, and even though the government's *first* explanation of WTC7 was that the building was brought down by a huge explosion in the basement fuel tank.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: NOTHING found in the investigations have implicated anything more than a terrorist attack.
Nobody questions that terrorists carried out those attacks.. :lol:

The thing is, all the evidence points to the fact that these terrorists have names like Dick Cheney and Michael Chertoff..

[Mighty Oak]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: NOTHING found in the investigations have implicated anything more than a terrorist attack.
Nobody questions that terrorists carried out those attacks.. :lol:

The thing is, all the evidence points to the fact that these terrorists have names like Dick Cheney and Michael Chertoff.. Don't forget Porter Goss.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: 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.

I wasn't attacking people's intelligence, just the evidence CTers present. Hell, I've asked over and over again for a single piece of real evidence and I have yet to see a single person step forward and offer any solid evidence. And if they are believing what you claim is "evidence", then IMHO they really ARE stupid and/or gullible. To gather evidence,the kind that will hold up in court,you need to investigate it.The Whitewash commission has said that their report is flawed.Help get an investigation and maybe it will go away.I agree that there will be some,no matter what is presented,but if it is a truly independed investigation for all to see,everyone under oathe and all the questions answered then so be it.

Several investigations have already been performed. YOU just choose to ignore them. NOTHING found in the investigations have implicated anything more than a terrorist attack. What you want is investigation after investigation until someone comes up with an answer that confirms your pre-conceived notions. Sorry. We shouldn't throw a dime after any investigation without SOMETHING to indicate a new investigation is warranted. You yourself admit that we are not being told the whole truth.It is quite evident now that we were lied to and that in its self is a reason for a truly independent investigation.You seem to think it is incompetence,I strongly disagree.But just for the sake of argument,lets go with that.Incompetence should be removed immediately,after all what makes them more competent now?We should have competent people in their perspective positions,don't cha think.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: How do you explain the collapse of WTC7?

Let's start there..

Which of the government's 5 conflicting explanations for the fall do you accept?

Bear in mind that the government's most recent explanation of WTC7 is that explosions had nothing to do w/ it, even though the government is now looking into that possibility, and even though the government's *first* explanation of WTC7 was that the building was brought down by a huge explosion in the basement fuel tank.

When the Official report is releasesd by the NIST I will tell you what the offical story is.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: 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.

I wasn't attacking people's intelligence, just the evidence CTers present. Hell, I've asked over and over again for a single piece of real evidence and I have yet to see a single person step forward and offer any solid evidence. And if they are believing what you claim is "evidence", then IMHO they really ARE stupid and/or gullible.
How do you explain the collapse of WTC7?

Let's start there..

Which of the government's 5 conflicting explanations for the fall do you accept?

Bear in mind that the government's most recent explanation of WTC7 is that explosions had nothing to do w/ it, even though the government is now looking into that possibility, and even though the government's *first* explanation of WTC7 was that the building was brought down by a huge explosion in the basement fuel tank.

:rofl: Once again I point to Psholtz' (and many other CTers) complete inability to understand the nature of an ongoing investigation. They believe that once a theory is stated, it is there for life. This explains their inability to let a theory go no matter how much it is discredited.

Normal people understand that a theory will naturally change as new facts are brought to light. Psholtz believes that once a theory is stated it is believed by the person or organization stating it no matter how many changes to the theory are made. :roll: You get more mature attitudes in daycare.

As for WTC 7, I have explained it enough. You want to know what happened? Go re-read all my other responses to you.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: 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.

I wasn't attacking people's intelligence, just the evidence CTers present. Hell, I've asked over and over again for a single piece of real evidence and I have yet to see a single person step forward and offer any solid evidence. And if they are believing what you claim is "evidence", then IMHO they really ARE stupid and/or gullible. To gather evidence,the kind that will hold up in court,you need to investigate it.The Whitewash commission has said that their report is flawed.Help get an investigation and maybe it will go away.I agree that there will be some,no matter what is presented,but if it is a truly independed investigation for all to see,everyone under oathe and all the questions answered then so be it.

Several investigations have already been performed. YOU just choose to ignore them. NOTHING found in the investigations have implicated anything more than a terrorist attack. What you want is investigation after investigation until someone comes up with an answer that confirms your pre-conceived notions. Sorry. We shouldn't throw a dime after any investigation without SOMETHING to indicate a new investigation is warranted. You yourself admit that we are not being told the whole truth.It is quite evident now that we were lied to and that in its self is a reason for a truly independent investigation.You seem to think it is incompetence,I strongly disagree.But just for the sake of argument,lets go with that.Incompetence should be removed immediately,after all what makes them more competent now?We should have competent people in their perspective positions,don't cha think.

Whether or not I think the government has told us the whole story is immaterial. There is no evidence that the government is currently withholding information. If that changes and new evidence comes to light, then an investigation into that aspect should be conducted. Unlike you, I am not going to call for a huge "independant" (a.k.a. Alex Jones) investigation into every little thing just because you THINK they are lying without any solid proof.

[Mighty Oak]

Without solid proof?One name Condi.Rice.Theres your proof.You deny this?

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Without solid proof?One name Condi.Rice.Theres your proof.You deny this?

I do not need proof Condoliza Rice exists. Why this means we should open a new investigation baffles me. ;-)

Maybe you should try and be a little more clear in your writing. I realize this has often times got you into trouble and showed that you were talking out of your nether regions, but vague mumbles like you posted above are meaningless.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Without solid proof?One name Condi.Rice.Theres your proof.You deny this?

I do not need proof Condoliza Rice exists. Why this means we should open a new investigation baffles me. ;-)

Maybe you should try and be a little more clear in your writing. I realize this has often times got you into trouble and showed that you were talking out of your nether regions, but vague mumbles like you posted above are meaningless. Lol,you know damn well that she is a proven liar about 911 and I'm not about to list them all.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Without solid proof?One name Condi.Rice.Theres your proof.You deny this?

I do not need proof Condoliza Rice exists. Why this means we should open a new investigation baffles me. ;-)

Maybe you should try and be a little more clear in your writing. I realize this has often times got you into trouble and showed that you were talking out of your nether regions, but vague mumbles like you posted above are meaningless. Lol,you know damn well that she is a proven liar about 911 and I'm not about to list them all.

So list one and show why it is a proven lie.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Without solid proof?One name Condi.Rice.Theres your proof.You deny this?

I do not need proof Condoliza Rice exists. Why this means we should open a new investigation baffles me. ;-)

Maybe you should try and be a little more clear in your writing. I realize this has often times got you into trouble and showed that you were talking out of your nether regions, but vague mumbles like you posted above are meaningless. Lol,you know damn well that she is a proven liar about 911 and I'm not about to list them all.

So list one and show why it is a proven lie. I'll do just one for you my intriguing little friend.Coni,paraphrasing.We had no idea that anyone would use an airplane as a weapon.That is a lie.They had freaking drills of just this scenario.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Without solid proof?One name Condi.Rice.Theres your proof.You deny this?

I do not need proof Condoliza Rice exists. Why this means we should open a new investigation baffles me. ;-)

Maybe you should try and be a little more clear in your writing. I realize this has often times got you into trouble and showed that you were talking out of your nether regions, but vague mumbles like you posted above are meaningless. Lol,you know damn well that she is a proven liar about 911 and I'm not about to list them all.

So list one and show why it is a proven lie. I'll do just one for you my intreiging little freind.Coni,paraphrasing.We had no idea that anyone would use an airplane as a weapon.That is a lie.They had freaking drills of just this scenario.

Here is the quote since you are unable to back up your own points and have to rely on others to do the work for you.

Condolezza Rice wrote: I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.

She is talking about the memo from August 6th where the memo clearly is only talking about a "normal" hijacking. After making this statement, she was informed by her staff that planes had indeed been planned to be used as missiles in other attacks.

Now, what you need to do is prove she knew BEFORE she made her statement that she knew that planes had been used in attack plans. The first part of her quote is correct as far as I know. There were numerous scenarios dreamed up about using planes as missiles, but not a coordinated attack using numerous planes hitting geographically disparate targets.

For the record, she officially addressed this and again under oath.

Condolezza Rice wrote: And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information. And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said, "I could not have imagined," because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999. The intelligence community did look at information about this."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us.

I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst.

So what you have done is pointed out a quote by Rice where she was wrong, but you have no evidence she knowingly lied. Otherwise she would have been brought up under perjury charges because she made the statement under oath.

If a federal investigation was launched every time someone said something that was wrong but they THOUGHT was correct, we would have nothing but federal investigations.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Without solid proof?One name Condi.Rice.Theres your proof.You deny this?

I do not need proof Condoliza Rice exists. Why this means we should open a new investigation baffles me. ;-)

Maybe you should try and be a little more clear in your writing. I realize this has often times got you into trouble and showed that you were talking out of your nether regions, but vague mumbles like you posted above are meaningless. Lol,you know damn well that she is a proven liar about 911 and I'm not about to list them all.

So list one and show why it is a proven lie. I'll do just one for you my intreiging little freind.Coni,paraphrasing.We had no idea that anyone would use an airplane as a weapon.That is a lie.They had freaking drills of just this scenario.

Here is the quote since you are unable to back up your own points and have to rely on others to do the work for you.

Condolezza Rice wrote: I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.

She is talking about the memo from August 6th where the memo clearly is only talking about a "normal" hijacking. After making this statement, she was informed by her staff that planes had indeed been planned to be used as missiles in other attacks.

Now, what you need to do is prove she knew BEFORE she made her statement that she knew that planes had been used in attack plans. The first part of her quote is correct as far as I know. There were numerous scenarios dreamed up about using planes as missiles, but not a coordinated attack using numerous planes hitting geographically disparate targets.

For the record, she officially addressed this and again under oath.

Condolezza Rice wrote: And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information. And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said, "I could not have imagined," because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999. The intelligence community did look at information about this."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us.

I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst.

So what you have done is pointed out a quote by Rice where she was wrong, but you have no evidence she knowingly lied. Otherwise she would have been brought up under perjury charges because she made the statement under oath.

If a federal investigation was launched every time someone said something that was wrong but they THOUGHT was correct, we would have nothing but federal investigations. She was the National Security Adviser.You are incredible.You are nothing more than a mouth piece of propaganda and I'm glad you continue in this manner for all to see.You are becoming so blatantly obvious that you serve this Administration first.