9/11

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: 9/11

Postby get louder at lambeau » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:26 pm

Beagle wrote:
get louder at lambeau wrote:Go back and see if I answered Beagle.


:rotf:

I seem to recall this:
get louder at lambeau wrote:Sorry Beagle, no offense, but I am not interested in spending any more of my time answering your questions.


Funny how you don't remember the part where I answered your first, main question that lead to those follow-ups. Or how I later pointed out that question 1 is just you being too lazy to google it, or how I answered your Bin Laden question. Oh well.

Let's try again:

1) When did he say that exactly? Date, time and circumstances. Was this part of his campaign to get into office?
2) So, there may have been planes, but you are not 100% positive. Does that pretty much sum it up?
3) But you think the planes were remotely controlled? Did the hijackers actually still take control of the planes then? Or is the hijacker theory something you do not buy into?

Nothing "lawyer-ly" here, just simple questions of opinion. State your opinion!


I'll answer your questions, since you think they are such majorly important questions that you can't possibly get past this without answers.

1) He stated it in the video I linked to that was dated years after his campaign. The video was released in 2012, 4 years after his most recent political campaign had ended. The context is that he was being interviewed for a 9/11 truth video by AE911truth.com, as you would have realized if you had just clicked the link that I provided right from the start. Sorry, but I can't give you the exact date and time of day, or the phase of the moon. Here it is, again, cued up for you and everything, just like it was when I first posted it. You're welcome! https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=2391

2) I believe there were planes, as I said before. After realizing how many inconsistencies there are all over, I don't claim to know for sure exactly how it was done, just that we were lied to, as I said multiple times now. That pretty much sums it up!

3) As I said before, I think they were most likely remote controlled. As I would think could be assumed by that statement, I do not think that it is as likely that the terrorists flew them, since pilots like the one I brought yesterday who flew those actual planes say the maneuvers would have been hard to impossible to execute even for a professional pilot.

There ya go, little buddy. You're welcome.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Beagle » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:48 pm

get louder at lambeau wrote:As to not answering your questions, I explained that in detail. Don't you agree that your question about "When, where, and in what context was it said..." was a little tedious? Like I'm your errand boy who should go google things for you and report back? I even gave you a link to follow, yet you somehow think it's my job to find out for you. Sorry, but I'm not your bitch.


No, valid question. It puts context to his questions. If this was recorded the day of the attacks his question is understandable. If he is asking the question 3 years later, on the campaign trail or otherwise, then it is a different story altogether.

How about the Bin Laden question? Am I right that it was a stupid question, or not?


No. You said the buildings were intentionally detonated via controlled explosions by the United States Government in conjunction with Israel and Saudi Arabia. So how does Bin Laden fit in to all of this? Was he in meetings at the White House? Did we fly out his mountain retreat or meet him in Saudi Arabia?

Or is he just a lackey with no knowledge that we pinned it on because he hated us already? Which calls into question the bombings in Tanzania and Kenya also. Did we perpetrate that those as well as a cover to the lead up of the Trade Center bombings?

BTW, how did we get Israel and Saudi Arabia to work together? They really don't like each other.

And was I wrong about your Matlock-ish prosecutorial intentions?


Yes. Honest questions to some thought provoking videos and assertions you have made. I am curious as to what you think really happened and if you have anything even related to evidence proving such.

You mention the torture scandal as an example of something major leaking out. From my perspective, I see it as something that was successfully covered up, for the most part.


Oh yea, that was hardly news. :roll:
Some blips leaked out. The President said, "We tortured some folks." No one is being prosecuted, except for the whistleblower. No one was impeached. No one was fired. Nothing.


11 soldiers were convicted. You can't impeach the President over random acts of prison guards. Commanding officer was demoted and relieved of command, as I recall.
Now you seem to think that puts me on the hook for defending everything about the subject. I already spend an inordinate amount of time on this, and answering every dumb question from someone who wants me to defend my position while he prosecutes it is unproductive, IMO.


Nah, just asked pointed questions on your assertions about 9/11. They were in response to videos and to quotes you have made. Hardly anything to get all worked up over.
I am trying to find out more about this, not trying to be the defense witness for the standpoint that currently makes the most sense to me.


Good luck with that.

Let's back to a discussion on 9/11, shall we?
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: 9/11

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:42 am

Here's a new one to me from another Bush Admin. insider -

User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Beagle » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:05 am

get louder at lambeau wrote:Here's a new one to me from another Bush Admin. insider -



He was debunked by another group as "nonsense" and his claims run counterproductive to other more vaild requests for information.

In March 2007, Reynolds filed a Request For Correction (RFC) with NIST citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers and making claims of faulty physics in NIST's computer animations of planes impacting the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11. Reynolds stated, “There were no planes, there were no hijackers. I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is.” Reynolds is one of three filers of RFCs to NIST who filed together, including Dr. Judy Wood. All three are represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart. NIST responded to the claims and rejected them.[2][3] Another group also filed a Request For Correction with NIST and cited the Reynolds RFC as "a nonsense submission," which was "likely to undermine the legitimate work of others" and to "inoculate people against any other legitimate challenges to the NIST Report."[4]

On his website, Reynolds argues that the mainstream versions of the JFK assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 attacks are all lies. He states “The network concealed in deep politics has grown more audacious since the Kennedy triumph … escalating to mass murders like the Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds

It gets better, listen to this: :D He suggests that what we saw hitting the South Tower was a cartoon animation and that the media was a part of it:



Bill O' Reilly tears this guy (Jim Fetzer) up on mainstream media TV:

“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: 9/11

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:15 am

Beagle wrote:Bill O' Reilly tears this guy (Jim Fetzer) up on mainstream media TV:



Thanks for bringing that, Beagle. Good stuff. Thanks for contributing.

Gotta love Bill O'Reilley! :lol: He goes on the attack right off the bat with his "these college professors HATE OUR COUNTRY" shtick, because that's how solid political journalists usually announce their guests, then ignores his guest's response completely and calls him names. No sign whatsoever that he heard anything his guest said.

Then instantly, right to my all-time favorite, which I have heard people parrot before almost verbatim, is a "There would have to be THOUSANDS of people involved..."

Why is it that, if middle eastern religious fundamentalists did 9/11, it is accepted that it makes perfect sense that a small group of brown men, maybe in the low dozens, is sufficient to pull off the 9/11 attacks...

...but the same people who believe and ferociously defend that theory inexplicably jump to the "It would take THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE" argument right away if it is proposed that anyone else did it? Are other people so physically or mentally inferior to these Muslim fundamentalist supermen that it would take THOUSANDS of modern day Americans to do what dozens of backwards Arabs can do? God, I hope not. Sounds stupid as hell. I don't get the logic. Sounds more like shouting down opposing viewpoints with fallacious arguments to me.

But Beagle, regardless of my personal opinion of Bill O'Reilly, thank you for bringing that. Please continue to bring the best you can find, and I will too. We might all learn something or another. Cheers! :BEER
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Beagle » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:31 am

Ya gotta love Fetzer! :D

A Fetzer article published by Press TV and Veterans Today titled (by the latter) "Did Mossad death squads slaughter American children at Sandy Hook?" was described in January 2013 by Oliver Kamm as "monstrous, calumnious, demented bilge" that "violates all bounds of decency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

Fetzer has written "my research on the Holocaust narrative suggests that it is not only untrue but provably false and not remotely scientifically sustainable."

:NUTS

EDIT:

get louder at lambeau wrote:But Beagle, regardless of my personal opinion of Bill O'Reilly, thank you for bringing that. Please continue to bring the best you can find, and I will too. We might all learn something or another. Cheers! :BEER


Cheers Louder! GO PACK GO! :BEER
Last edited by Beagle on Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: 9/11

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:34 am

Beagle wrote:Ya gotta love Fetzer! :D

A Fetzer article published by Press TV and Veterans Today titled (by the latter) "Did Mossad death squads slaughter American children at Sandy Hook?" was described in January 2013 by Oliver Kamm as "monstrous, calumnious, demented bilge" that "violates all bounds of decency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

Fetzer has written "my research on the Holocaust narrative suggests that it is not only untrue but provably false and not remotely scientifically sustainable."

:NUTS


Did you already know about this guy? I've never heard of him. A Bush Admin insider who is also a 9/11 truther is a pretty good find, IMO. What's his story?
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Beagle » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:38 am

get louder at lambeau wrote:Did you already know about this guy? I've never heard of him. A Bush Admin insider who is also a 9/11 truther is a pretty good find, IMO. What's his story?


I had never heard of him but his youtube video popped up when looking for material on Reynolds. Apparently, neither of them are held in very high esteem.
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: 9/11

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm

Beagle wrote:
get louder at lambeau wrote:Did you already know about this guy? I've never heard of him. A Bush Admin insider who is also a 9/11 truther is a pretty good find, IMO. What's his story?


I had never heard of him but his youtube video popped up when looking for material on Reynolds. Apparently, neither of them are held in very high esteem.


Of course they aren't held in high esteem. If you ARE held in high esteem, that changes as soon as you question 9/11. Look at what happened to Dr. Steven Jones. He went from being a respected, soft-spoken physics professor who had worked on cold fusion to being fired and being a crazy, stupid, fraudulent, horrible person ONLY because he found evidence of incendiaries and people hate the implications of that. Not accepting the official version gets you shunned right away.

People dislike the idea both instinctively and emotionally that Americans ever would do such a thing. That scary brown badguys from another country with a weird religion did it is a much more comfortable thought, and was "known" almost instantly, within hours. Anyone who thinks differently gets attacked, just like that guy did by Bill O'Reilly - "#1 you hate your country, and #2 you're a loon." "Why don't you just say you have a martian living in your bedroom?" Those are real quotes from O'Reilly in that clip.

Unfortunately, that kind of ridicule works, to an extent. Take that, anyone dares to question the official 9/11 narrative! You're an America-hating lunatic who claims to have martians for pets if you don't accept the official story! That's why! The guy was an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, but he hates America because Bill O'Reilly shouted at him on TV. It's really stupid, but how many people are going to even think about it? What they just saw was some crazy American-hating jerk get yelled at by a REAL American! It is more likely to get an emotional response that to encourage a rational look into the guy's claims.

Similarly, if you dare to mention any potential connections to Israel, you are likely to get something like, "You're an anti-Semite, you racist Nazi!" or "Are you some kinda Muslim?" If that doesn't work because the person getting shouted down is himself Jewish, then he gets labeled a self-hating Jew, or just dismissed as loony, or is just plain ignored.

Someone in the press not listening to him, and yelling over him ABOUT not being able to get the press to listen to him, is O'Reilly's main argument. Kinda self-reinforcing. Besides that argument, he mostly ridicules and spews venom at his guest. Stay classy, Bill.

Despite Bill's screaming, this guy and other people from the 9/11 truth movement HAVE gotten SOME press. Just not from the CIA controlled mainstream. This guy mentions Operation Mockingbird. That is the key to maintaining this. The government can control the press much more than most would find believable, which leads to public incredulity for anything that isn't USG approved.

If the Government doesn't let your story gain traction, then that means you're crazy! If anyone in the independent press gives you time, then they hate America and are crazy people too! That leads to where we are now. - a mainstream media boycott of the 9/11 Truth movement, with independent and non-controlled international media telling a different story.

Because the stories from these independent media outlets rarely make it onto the western mainstream press, people in America are generally dismissive, because they assume that, if it there was anything to it, they would eventually hear about it on CNN, MSNBC, FOX or somewhere from the western mainstream, because there is an illusion that the mainstream media is the "free press". In reality, they can be controlled easily.

If the CIA Operation Mockingbird isn't enough, for whatever reason, then just send a National Security Letter telling them not to report on that, under penalty of law, because "national security would be threatened." No need to prove it. The letters come from secretive FISA courts. If you receive one, you are barred from even admitting that you got one, under penalty of law. The press has been consolidated down to 5 or 6 companies. Not as hard to control as it used to be. They dominate the narrative and can almost create their own reality and have the majority believe it.

Non-controlled international press can easily be ignored. Most Americans don't even look at international media, and much of it is written in different languages. If the story doesn't get picked up by the western mainstream press, it doesn't count.

The independent press are easily dismissed as internet weirdos who couldn't cut it in the mainstream press. Even people who have previously had great success in the mainstream media are dismissed, like Paul Craig Roberts, who is a former editor of the Wall Street Journal, now shunned by the mainstream, long-time anchor Dan Rather, who got fired for a report about GWB's early years, and Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize winner who exposed the Mai Lai Massacre and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Worst case scenario, if you are a real thorn in their side, like Michael Hastings, maybe you die in a fireball. Here's a look at his story and his death -http://nymag.com/news/features/michael-hastings-2013-11/
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Beagle » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:16 pm

get louder at lambeau wrote:If you are held in high esteem, that changes as soon as you question 9/11. Look at what happened to Dr. Steven Jones. He went from a respected physics professor who worked on cold fusion to being fired and being a crazy, stupid, fraudulent, horrible person ONLY because he found evidence of incendiaries and people hate the implications of that. Not accepting the official version gets you shunned right away.


The paragraph above is one of the biggest issues I have with your claims or accusations against people or Government. Let's fact check this, shall we?

1) Dr. Stevens was not fired. He was placed on PAID Administrative leave because his work had become "speculative" and because of the accusatory nature of his work. It was pending review.

2) He elected to retire, he was not fired. As part of the deal, the review was abandoned.. That is big difference.

Here is a link to his wiki that anyone can read and come to their own conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts on whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

People dislike the idea both instinctively and emotionally that Americans ever would do such a thing. That scary brown badguys from another country with a weird religion did it is a much more comfortable thought, and was "known" almost instantly, within hours. Anyone who thinks differently gets attacked, just like that guy did by Bill O'Reilly - "#1 you hate your country, and #2 you're a loon." "Why don't you just say you have a martian living in your bedroom?"


People love controversy and they love watching human emotion on TV. Does Jerry Springer come to mind? Why is the Bachelor such a popular TV show? Most people can't accept the theories about 9/11 because there is no basis of rational behind them and there is overwhelming evidence against such.

Take for instance the theory that it was a cruise missile that hit the WTC. TV camera's have actual footage of the airliner hitting the building. They have cockpit voice recordings proving the plane was hijacked, they have recorded flight paths, they have calls from airliners from passengers, they have.....the list goes on and on.

Conspiracy theorists have nothing but murky, grainy, photos they try and prove is really a missile and not an airliner. It's ridiculous so they are balked at and shunned. Having new ideas is one thing, stating blatantly false information with no support evidence is another. They have no evidence because it didn't happen.

"The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes" - David Shayler

"I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet but the credibility I add to the movement is enormous." - David Shayler

Yea, David, you bring a lot to the "movement". You just move it in the wrong direction. :D :rotf: :NUTS

Unfortunately, that kind of ridicule works. Take that, anyone dares to question the official 9/11 narrative! You're an America-hating lunatic who claims to have martians for pets if you don't accept the official story! That's why! The guy was an officer in the U.S. Marine Corp, but he hates America and is crazy and is bad and should be shouted down and not listened to!


Ted Kaczynski graduated from Harvard University. What is your point?

Someone in the press not listening to him and yelling over him about not being able to get the press to listen to him is O'Reilly's only argument. Kinda self-reinforcing. Besides that argument, he's just yelling ridicule at his guest. Stay classy, Bill.


Fetzer is a nut who can't be taken seriously because:

1) He claims that Mossad death squads slaughtered American children at Sandy Hook.
2) Holocaust denier. Claims provably false and not remotely scientifically sustainable.
3) Claims the airplane crash that killed US Senator Paul Wellstone had been an assassination.

You see a pattern here? I do and it is right not take this guy seriously. His claims are outrageous and even if he stumbles upon some fact, his other "work" will dampen his own validity. He is his own worst enemy.

This goes back to why a lot of these "9/11 truthers" are not held in high esteem. It's not just 9/11 that they have issues with. A lot of their theories are completely outrageous.

Despite Bill's screaming, this guy and other people from the 9/11 truth movement HAVE gotten some press. Just not the CIA controlled mainstream. This guy mentions Operation Mockingbird. That is the key. Bill ignores it. The government controls the press much more than most find believable, which leads to public incredulity for anything that isn't the official USG narrative.


Yes, the "truth" movement has gotten some press. Just the fact that he mentions "Operation Mockingbird" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)in the same context as the events on 9/11 is reason enough to be suspicious of his claims and to question the validity of his arguments.

If the Government doesn't let your story gain traction, then you are discredited! If anyone in the independent press gives you time, then they hate America and are crazy people too! That leads to where we are now. Mainstream media boycott, independent and non-controlled international media are telling a totally different story that never gets time on the western mainstream press, and then people find it hard to believe because it there was anything to it, they think they would eventually hear about it on CNN, MSNBC, FOX or somewhere from the mainstream.


Our government has little to no control over the news in our country. The press and news organizations have actually been the bane of the Presidency for a long time. Ask Bill Clinton. Ask Richard Nixon. Ask G.W. Bush.

The press has been consolidated down to 5 or 6 companies. Not as hard to control as it used to be. They can create their own reality and people will believe it. The independent press are dismissed as internet loonies. Non-controlled international press is ignored. Mission accomplished. Kinda. Sloppily though. And those few who look deeper will find other ideas.


That is so not true. 5 or 6 companies in the entire United States? There are thousands of news media outlets in all sorts of forms. TV, paper, internet, etc. The Government has little to no influence in what gets reported. If the government tried to control or cover up, news outlets what jump all over them and root out the truth. Even in times of war, news gets leaked.

It is ironic that people turn on the government and expose them all the time, but nothing has ever been turned up about a conspiracy for 9/11. That, in and of itself, is very telling.
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: 9/11

Postby get louder at lambeau » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:04 pm

Beagle wrote:Yes, the "truth" movement has gotten some press. Just the fact that he mentions "Operation Mockingbird" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)in the same context as the events on 9/11 is reason enough to be suspicious of his claims and to question the validity of his arguments.


Sure, be suspicious and question everything. I agree. Make sure to apply that to both/all sides, not just one.

Operation Mockingbird is real. It was partially exposed in Congress in the Church Committee of the 1970s. The man answering questions in this video is then CIA Director William Colby.



Here's a more recent look. Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, an award-winning former German newspaper editor, talks about his experience with it here. This is from last year. Western media, of course, mostly ignored this story. You won't find a FOX, NBC, or BBC report about his allegations.



Our government has little to no control over the news in our country. It is a fact and to say otherwise is completely false without any basis of truth whatsoever. The press and news organizations have actually been the bane of the Presidency for a long time. Ask Bill Clinton. Ask Richard Nixon. Ask G.W. Bush.


Of course they have some controls. They have to have some control to be able to protect legitimate secrets. When they can make a claim that it threatens national security, they have massive control through National Security Letters, as I mentioned in my last post. The gag order that accompanies a National Security Letter comes with a 5 year prison term just for admitting to ANYONE that you even received the letter. Pretty strong deterrent. Not hard to connect 9/11 related topics to national security.

Here's an example that I have given before of a major 9/11-related story just dying and going away without any follow-up or explanation. What happened? Why no follow up? Why didn't any other media outlets besides Fox News pick up on the story? My guess is a National Security Letter was received. And if they DID receive one, you would never know it, because of that gag order. The story would just go away and not be talked about anymore, just like what actually happened.



The press has been consolidated down to 5 or 6 companies. Not as hard to control as it used to be. They can create their own reality and people will believe it. The independent press are dismissed as internet loonies. Non-controlled international press is ignored. Mission accomplished. Kinda. Sloppily though. And those few who look deeper will find other ideas.


That is so not true. 5 or 6 companies in the entire United States? There are thousands of news media outlets in all sorts of forms. TV, paper, internet, etc. The Government has little to no influence in what gets reported. If the government tried to control or cover up, news outlets what jump all over them and root out the truth. Even in times of war, news gets leaked.


Yes, things do get leaked. And there are independent media outlets, but most of the media outlets have been consolidated over the last couple decades, and are now owned by 5 or 6 companies. This article says 6 - http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/10/23 ... hear-read/

It is ironic that people turn on the government and expose them all the time, but nothing has ever been turned up about a conspiracy for 9/11. That, in and of itself, is very telling.


I disagree. Not sure exactly what counts as "turned up" to you, but right in this thread we have been discussing many things that have turned up, and are continuing to do so. They all just tend to get ignored by the mainstream media and USG.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Beagle » Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:33 pm

get louder at lambeau wrote:Operation Mockingbird is real. It was partially exposed in Congress in the Church Committee of the 1970s. The man answering questions in this video is then CIA Director William Colby.


Except it has no validity when trying to connect it to the events on 9/11. The news reporters across the United States, the world and all of the amateur photographers and videographers were not paid off by the US Government. It is an impossible task. Yes, impossible. There is no connection between the two.

Here's a more recent look. Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, an award-winning former German newspaper editor, talks about his experience with it here.


This is the same guy that reported the following:

1) Turkish women were pooping on the strawberries in Austria.

Germany was facing a health crisis due to vegetables tainted with E.coli. He claims a "fecal Jihad" was being waged by Muslims against Europeans. BTW, it was actually cucumbers from Spain.

2) Wants all Muslims deported from Germany. They eat up our free money and space, is what he eludes to.

He was Christian, then Muslim, the atheist then back to Christian. Or something along those lines.

3) Reported Obama was waging a secret war against Christians.

He has pretty much faded away from view because his "reporting" has been so drastically outrageous and found to be inaccurate, or blatant lies.

"For years he has been publishing articles and books that distort the truth, or are outright lies."

Ulfkotte was pretty much ignored by legitimate news outlets. Or he was derisively dismissed as a conspiracy nut. But two events happened last year that revitalized his career in fake journalism: the unfolding events in the Ukraine and the rise of the "Pegida movement". The Ukraine crisis allowed Ulkotte to latch onto the Russian propaganda outlets and accuse the Western media of being controlled by the CIA. Also the Lügenpresse! battle-cry of the Pegida protesters has given Ulfkotte a convenient cover to go after the journalists who scorned or ignored him in the past. Now he can lie about how the mainstream press is in the pocket of the CIA:.

Conclusion; Not a reporter to be taken seriously. His far fetched stories have been proven to extremely inaccurate or completely contrived. Fake journalist.

I could go on and on. Actually, I cannot identify any examples where the "journalist" Udo Ulfkotte reported truthfully about anything.

http://www.dialoginternational.com/dial ... ndist.html

Of course they have some controls. They have to have some control to be able to protect legitimate secrets.


That is not controlling the media. That is controlling what you say to the media. Big, BIG difference. The United States Government doesn't scare news outlets and if they find a story they want to run with, can prove it, have sources and can justify it, they will print it. Then they will let their lawyers sort it out.

The only thing that scares a news outlet is losing viewership.

Here's an example that I have given before of a major 9/11-related story just dying and going away without any follow-up or explanation. What happened? Why no follow up? Why didn't any other media outlets besides Fox News pick up on the story? My guess is a National Security Letter was received. And if they DID receive one, you would never know it, because of that gag order. The story would just go away and not be talked about anymore, just like what actually happened.


Israel spying on the US is nothing new. Israel spying on Muslims or Arabs they have an interest in, inside the US and abroad, is nothing new. The US trying to find out what Israel knew prior to 9/11 is nothing new. We spy on them as well. Were we not just caught listening in to high level phone conversations?

If there was a break in the story or more information came to light, they would have reported it. I just did a Google search on Israel spying on the US and 9/11...Go see how widely stories like that are reported.

I bet if the Government dared to send a "National Security Letter" in regards to a story, that letter itself would end up on the news. Their lawyers would pounce all over something like that and broadcast it day and night forcing the White House to answer questions about it.

Media ratings would soar for that station. Especially when Bush was in office. The news media hated Bush.

Yes, things do get leaked. And there are independent media outlets, but most of the media outlets have been consolidated over the last couple decades, and are now owned by 5 or 6 companies. This article says 6 - http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/10/23 ... hear-read/


But you are discounting thousands and thousands of smaller news organizations that make up a very large part of journalism. If a smaller paper gets a hold of evidence or incriminating photos that a larger company deems worthy, they will pay to get a hold of them. It happens all the time. Newsworthy reports, especially controversial are shared and spread at an alarming rate.

You also discount amateurs. Take 9/11 and the "truth" movement claiming no planes hit the WTC. There are hundreds and hundreds of photos and videos proving that planes did hit the WTC. Thousands of eyewitnesses saw it happen and they have evidence to prove it. Real evidence. Evidence that shows the truth that planes, in fact, were hijacked and flown into the buildings. It can be corroborated. So widely corroborated that to say anything else is completely beyond comprehension.

I disagree. Not sure exactly what counts as "turned up" to you, but right in this thread we have been discussing many things that have turned up, and are continuing to do so. They all just tend to get ignored by the mainstream media and USG.


Just in our small discussion here, I am able to refute any evidence that these conspiracy theorists present. Most of them are not news worthy because they have no story. They have no proof, no evidence.

All they have are accusations. Anyone can accuse. Doesn't make it a fact. Because of this, I can rip their stories to shreds.
“….I firmly believe that any man’s finest hours – his greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear – is that moment when he has worked his heart out in good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.”
User avatar
Beagle
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:18 am

Re: 9/11

Postby raptorman » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:10 am

You know what I am trying to figure out? If 9/11 was an inside job, then they did it without any type of records in the computer system. Which in this day and age would seem almost impossible. I would have though Snowden would have released those documents by now.

The other thing I don't get, is the cruise missile theory. Some friends and a I sat down one night an figured out how many people would be aware that an aircraft launched a live cruise missile. The number we came up with is right around 100 people, plus or minus 10. So for each cruise missile launched you would have to keep 100 people quiet. Plus you have to explain all the aircraft parts showing up at the Pentagon at the same time a cruise missile hits.

And to top it all off, you have to make everyone of those people that got on those planes disappear forever. How many people would that take? Sorry, the number of people who would have to be involved in any conspiracy on 9/11 would number in the thousands. And there is no way you are keeping that many people quiet about killing civilians.
Since 1994, the QB sacked by Vikings more than any other QB in the league. Aaron Rodgers.
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6131
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: 9/11

Postby get louder at lambeau » Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:45 am

raptorman wrote:You know what I am trying to figure out? If 9/11 was an inside job, then they did it without any type of records in the computer system. Which in this day and age would seem almost impossible. I would have though Snowden would have released those documents by now.


Good point. But what kind of records are you referring to? Financial, or something else?

The other thing I don't get, is the cruise missile theory. Some friends and a I sat down one night an figured out how many people would be aware that an aircraft launched a live cruise missile. The number we came up with is right around 100 people, plus or minus 10. So for each cruise missile launched you would have to keep 100 people quiet. Plus you have to explain all the aircraft parts showing up at the Pentagon at the same time a cruise missile hits.


Absolutely solid thought process, IMO. I have never bumped into the cruise missile theory that Beagle is beating up on, as far as the WTC. I agree that it sounds pretty dumb. I have heard a theory about a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon. Not sure why, other than the realistically suspicious point that, even with all the cameras on and near the most secure building in the world, they never released a pic of the plane whatsoever. I don't know what to think of it, other than that it's not what normally would happen, and that the same thing didn't happen at the WTC. Plenty of footage of planes at that location. None at the Pentagon? Is there a good explanation that I haven't heard? Odd, at least. To wonder why is not paranoid, IMO.

And to top it all off, you have to make everyone of those people that got on those planes disappear forever. How many people would that take? Sorry, the number of people who would have to be involved in any conspiracy on 9/11 would number in the thousands. And there is no way you are keeping that many people quiet about killing civilians.


I don't know about how many people that would take. I think the planes were real. No need for an increase in staffing with real planes that really hit where they say they did.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby wallyuwl » Sat Sep 19, 2015 3:53 am

This thread is way too long. And I used to make posts just as long that resulted in threads just as long. I'm tired just scrolling through! :lol:

Edit: Cheese curds. :banana
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 11916
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests