[Athens]

Read all 4 Stories before posting a reply, and then ask yourself, do you trust your government....

The Speculation
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracyth...eculation.html

The Saudi Connection
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

The Intelligence Breakdown
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracyth...elligence.html

The Congressional Report
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/report.html


Why did I post this? Because Americans really are being kept in the dark and need to know the facts from a OUTSIDE source that isnt controlled by US Government, American Public Opinion or Money.

[vmarks]

Let's see. Once again, the intelligence page repeats the disproven DEA-employee-blames-Israeli-intelligence theory.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them any truer.

[Athens]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Let's see. Once again, the intelligence page repeats the disproven DEA-employee-blames-Israeli-intelligence theory.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them any truer.

Why not try reading all 4 pages for one, and reading the entire thing. It covers everything that was speculative. Btw can you copy paste the paragraph to which you are refering too?

[clod]

Why do you call these facts? They are just silly conspiracy theories.

[Athens]

Im and going to guess you mean this part...


"ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE
In early 2001, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) notices evidence of an Israeli art student spy ring operating in the U.S. Working in small groups, the students go door-to-door selling art. When the DEA interview some of the students, they discover they are often the sons and daughters of high officials in the Israeli military and many have intelligence training.

One of these Israeli cells is located near the home of Mohammed Atta in Florida during the time that Atta – the pilot of Flight 11 on 9/11 – is receiving his flight training. The DEA orders the students back to Israel. In August of 2001, the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad gives the CIA the names of 200 people they consider to be terrorist threats. The Mossad were apparently interested in Atta and his accomplice, Marwan al-Shehi.

"

Here are some links that support this information

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../AAisrael.html

"January 2000 (B): A DEA government document later leaked to the press [DEA report, 6/01] suggests that a large Israeli spy ring starts penetrating the US from at least this time, if not earlier. This ring, which will later become popularly known as the "art student spy ring," is later shown to have strange connections to the events of 9/11. [Insight, 3/11/02]

"

And here is another link with the DEA report
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...1/dea0601.html

And because there was so much information about this on the net here is a google search link with the right key words so you can look through them yourself

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Israel...l=en&meta=

[Athens]

Originally posted by clod:
Why do you call these facts? They are just silly conspiracy theories.

There are facts in there as well as the conspiracy theroies, ok so I worded it wrong. But again you need to read all 4 articles in full to get a true entire picture. Dont be affraid, you wont learn anything real bad. Just a cover up on how the Saudis are the true source to 911 and how the Bush family has a long history with them.

[Athens]

The first article is the speculations, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th articles are the Facts

[Phat Bastard]

Coincidentally, I was just about to post a link to the Fifth Estate's site about this show they did. I just finished watching it. Scary stuff. I need to read more about this but my first impression is to believe anything of the Bush family.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Phat Bastard:
Coincidentally, I was just about to post a link to the Fifth Estate's site about this show they did. I just finished watching it. Scary stuff. I need to read more about this but my first impression is to believe anything of the Bush family.

Beacause I am on dialup and I need to go do some stuff today I would like to ask you to watch the thread and rebutle BS from any one that isnt willing to read through all the articles, im only interested in real dialog about the report from those that are willing to read and discuse, im going to stay on this topic for the next few weeks to attempt to open the eyes of Americans that have had the truth lied or withheld from them or refuse to belive the truths because I think It is important not to allow any more distruction of American values in truth and justice, its the only thing that keeps the US free and watching from up here how slowly American rights and freedoms are being distroyed over this from fear and fear is the most dangerous thing out there. Americans cant allow any more of there personal freedoms to disolve because the US is the most powerful country in the world and if that happens where lies become common, the public is feed lies, or facts withheld the US will become a very dangerous country for every one. American people are being tricked either to make them feel safe, or to protect the government from outrage.

CNN cant tell the full truth with out the risk of a public backlash which results in money, if they lose sponsers, ads, support then there bottom line suffers. I wont say CNN will lie, but I will say they will not report on things that could affect them. Look at all the damage done to a few stars for being anti war, look at the dixie chicks. What is sad that people cant be anti war with out being Anit American, personal thought becomes dangerous which is against American beliefs.

[vmarks]

I read all four links the first time.

They've all been discredited before.

The example I posted is one of the weakest ones, and has been thoroughly refuted by the DEA, where your link claims it originates.

The rest is just as much bunk.

[vmarks]

The Washington Post pretty much refuted the so-called 'exposé' over 16 months ago.

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_contex...;x_article=147

the Washington Post has revealed that the Drug Enforcement Administration report that had been cited as proof of Israeli student spying is, in fact, no report at all. According to the Post, it is instead an unofficial draft by a disgruntled DEA official: “allegations ... of a massive U.S. probe of Israeli spies appear to have been circulated by a single employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration who is angry that his theories have not gained currency ... [and who] appears to be leaking a memo that he himself wrote.”

Affirming that “a wide array of U.S. officials yesterday dismissed reports that the U.S. government had broken up an Israeli espionage ring ...”, the Post quoted Justice Department official Susan Dryden, who characterized the allegations as “an urban myth that has been circulating for months...” and Immigration official Russell Bergeron, who characterized the arrests of young Israelis as “routine, normal cases ... I have no knowledge of any espionage-related issues with these people.”

Despite the definitive discrediting of these Israeli spying allegations, one can be certain that the bogus stories will continue to circulate on the internet and to be cited by anti-Israel propagandists.

you're relying on an urban myth put forth by a disgruntled DEA worker.

When you put wild urban myths next to things that have mild relation to fact, it doesn't convert the myth to fact. It just means the source is straining to paint a reality that isn't.

Why would they do that? Because the truth is so unpalatable, that they must find a new perpetrator to pin blame on. Conveniently for your links, they happen to be the victim.

(This post made possible by version, who posted the other revolting thread, and einmakom who did the research above, as ripped from this link: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post1754630)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Athens:
Why did I post this? Because Americans really are being kept in the dark and need to know the facts from a OUTSIDE source that isnt controlled by US Government, American Public Opinion or Money.

Can you summarize in your own words what you see as the truth from these links? From what I can tell, just skimming through and not studying them intensively or anything, there is a bunch of information about how Bush was in the oil business (duh) and so was bin Laden's family, and that there were some links between the two. So what does that mean exactly? What's the implication? That Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks? If not, then what, exactly? Then there is information that we should have taken signs of impending attacks more seriously. No doubt. But what's the implication? That it was intentionally allowed to happen? Again, if not that, then what? I honestly couldn't piece the message together with a quick read.

Is it that the US is too friendly with Saudi Arabia? OK. That's been said many many times, and not in articles that have "CONSPIRACY THEORY" splashed across the top.

[Athens]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The Washington Post pretty much refuted the so-called 'exposé' over 16 months ago.

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_contex...;x_article=147



you're relying on an urban myth put forth by a disgruntled DEA worker.

When you put wild urban myths next to things that have mild relation to fact, it doesn't convert the myth to fact. It just means the source is straining to paint a reality that isn't.

Why would they do that? Because the truth is so unpalatable, that they must find a new perpetrator to pin blame on. Conveniently for your links, they happen to be the victim.

(This post made possible by version, who posted the other revolting thread, and einmakom who did the research above, as ripped from this link: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post1754630)

Ok I will accept that, but there is alot in those reports more important, mostly the Saudi Connection. Look at where Biny Boy gets his funding, look at how many of the hijackers are Saudi, im more interested in why the Saudis are being ignored as threats when its clear there is more of a connection between Alkida and Saudis then Iraq.

[Athens]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Can you summarize in your own words what you see as the truth from these links? From what I can tell, just skimming through and not studying them intensively or anything, there is a bunch of information about how Bush was in the oil business (duh) and so was bin Laden's family, and that there were some links between the two. So what does that mean exactly? What's the implication? That Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks? If not, then what, exactly? Then there is information that we should have taken signs of impending attacks more seriously. No doubt. But what's the implication? That it was intentionally allowed to happen? Again, if not that, then what? I honestly couldn't piece the message together with a quick read.

Is it that the US is too friendly with Saudi Arabia? OK. That's been said many many times, and not in articles that have "CONSPIRACY THEORY" splashed across the top.

No I dont blame bush, but I do think bush is given a blind eye to the Saudis, mostly because of American econimic interests and oil. My opinion would be that American agencies ****ed up, they had all the information they needed to prevent it but because the agancies didnt work together they couldnt peace it all together in time. I dont think any one in the States ALLOWED this to happen on purpose, its all mistakes. But why isnt the US going after the Saudis? Everything in Washington has been done to hide the fact teh Saudis are to blame for this. They funded Biny Boy and prob knew what was going to happen yet nothing has been done about it. Afganistan was def a valid target for 911, the training camps where there. But then Bush invaded Iraq to side track the real issue. Of course the States have to remain friendly with the Saudis for the oil. Thats prob the biggest coverup going on. LOL I dont have time to make this reply more detailed, it will be something I'll work on tonight, but again I don't the white house had anything to do with the 911 attacks, I think they are covering up the truth about the Saudis only.

[Phat Bastard]

By the way, this is an extremely minor part of the documentary's story. There's really no need to go off on a huge tangent.

The real point of this documentary are these:

• before Sept. 11 the Saudis knew Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist act against the US,

• the US had some signs pointing to Saudi terrorists in the US and could have stopped them,

• once the attacks took place, the US turned a blind eye to the Bin Laden family and some other influential Saudis because they wanted to maintain their ties to the country for its oil,

• and that the Bush Administration continues to hinder investigations into the US-Saudi links and the aforementioned problems.

Please stop harping on this minor, minor, minor point!

Originally posted by vmarks:
The Washington Post pretty much refuted the so-called 'exposé' over 16 months ago.

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_contex...;x_article=147



you're relying on an urban myth put forth by a disgruntled DEA worker.

When you put wild urban myths next to things that have mild relation to fact, it doesn't convert the myth to fact. It just means the source is straining to paint a reality that isn't.

Why would they do that? Because the truth is so unpalatable, that they must find a new perpetrator to pin blame on. Conveniently for your links, they happen to be the victim.

(This post made possible by version, who posted the other revolting thread, and einmakom who did the research above, as ripped from this link: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post1754630)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

What is all this squawking I hear these days about the Bin Laden **Family** and ties to Bush and 9/11 like everyone is supposed to hear the family name ‘Bin Laden’ and become an instant idiot?

Is there supposed to be some automatic guilt by association or something? By every account I’ve seen- I dunno, maybe some www.leftwingkooks.org site can dredge up otherwise- no one else in the Bin Laden family is connected to any way to terror. None of them support their infamous son. They’re traditionally in **construction**, not oil.

What’s the big deal with them leaving the country after one of their (50 or so) offspring disgraced their name so horribly? What’s the big deal with an otherwise respectable family having ties to Bush? That people who just hear the name ‘Bin Laden’ as related to the entire family and immediately think ‘terrorist’ might do them harm? How ironic is it, the types who are usually whining over captured enemy combatants and known terrorists, now want to pin public opinion ‘guilt by association’ on the entire Bin Laden family.

This is akin to making a big stink out of: “And so and so had Kennedy family connections dating back years…” Ohhhh! Terrible. I mean after all, one of the cousins is a convicted murderer, another a rapist, and Ted managed to kill someone with his drunk driving and get away with it- therefore contact with the entire rest of the family must make one a party to murder, rape, and/or manslaughter.

Hell let’s trace everyone who ever did business with Max Factor-they must be in on the rapes that Andrew Luster committed. Anyone who ever did business with the Hearst family, we can tie to bank robbery.

But nope- we should have just arrested anyone in the same family after 9/11! Ahh, but then we’d hear 100 different conspiracies about THAT.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Phat Bastard:
By the way, this is an extremely minor part of the documentary's story. There's really no need to go off on a huge tangent.

When one part of the 'documentary' is not factual, it calls into question the factual quality of the other claims.

A documentary is supposed to document, recount, and record facts. Even if those facts are colored by their director and cinematographer, the documentary is still meant to have some relation to reality, not fiction. Inclusion of fiction removes it from the realm of successful documentary.

Besides, heckuva way to run a discussion thread- invite discussion and then ask someone to not raise a point.

[Athens]

Originally posted by vmarks:
When one part of the 'documentary' is not factual, it calls into question the factual quality of the other claims.

A documentary is supposed to document, recount, and record facts. Even if those facts are colored by their director and cinematographer, the documentary is still meant to have some relation to reality, not fiction. Inclusion of fiction removes it from the realm of successful documentary.

Besides, heckuva way to run a discussion thread- invite discussion and then ask someone to not raise a point.

First part was a documentary of the different conspiracy ideas that have been in the media

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
First part was a documentary of the different conspiracy ideas that have been in the media

So your thread title ought to have been "9/11 conspiracy theories from a Canadian perspective." You could have left the word "facts" out.

Incidentally, if you want people to read conspiracy theory links, it is best not to post the full URL if it has the words "conspiracy theories" in it. It's a bit of a givaway.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So your thread title ought to have been "9/11 conspiracy theories from a Canadian perspective." You could have left the word "facts" out.

Incidentally, if you want people to read conspiracy theory links, it is best not to post the full URL if it has the words "conspiracy theories" in it. It's a bit of a givaway.

And I asked people read them first before posting which in your case you didnt do because most of it is FACT not Conspiracy theories. Go read it then post.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
By every account I’ve seen- I dunno, maybe some www.leftwingkooks.org site can dredge up otherwise- no one else in the Bin Laden family is connected to any way to terror. None of them support their infamous son.

I've bookmarked your link, because it sounds interesting, but it doesn't ever seem to load.

[vmarks]

Interesting.

The responses supporting these bizarre claims seem to be either "you obviously didn't read it, because if you did, you'd agree with me. go read it, then post" or "don't post about that, it's a minor detail and detracts from the rest of the facts"

Neither of which encourage discussion.

I've read all the links. I presume the others you've told to 'go read' have as well, simply because it seems so from their posts.

Mixing disproven conspiracy theories with what-you-claim-are-facts is a sure way to sully and discredit facts. If these facts are so surely true, can you not find a source that doesn't surround them with conspiracy, a source that might be more credible, a source that doesn't rely on guilt by association or disgruntled DEA employee ramblings?

[mfdynusore]

QUOTE: a source that might be more credible, a source that doesn't rely on guilt by association or disgruntled DEA employee ramblings? END QUOTE:

Are the "disgruntled ramblings" of the DEA employee automatically assumed to be untrue? Doesn't a paranoic often have real enemies?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by mfdynusore:
QUOTE: a source that might be more credible, a source that doesn't rely on guilt by association or disgruntled DEA employee ramblings? END QUOTE:

Are the "disgruntled ramblings" of the DEA employee automatically assumed to be untrue? Doesn't a paranoic often have real enemies?

They aren't assumed to be untrue- they have been proven to be untrue.

[Athens]

all 4 articles go together, the first part was reporting about the CONSPIRACY THEORYs, if they where concidered fact it would be about conspiracy theorys it would have been called facts. There talk about them as Conspiracy theorys which is all they are. Then it moves into the events and facts and allows you to form your own opinion on whats going on. I think the first part of the documentary about it belongs there.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Athens:
all 4 articles go together, the first part was reporting about the CONSPIRACY THEORYs, if they where concidered fact it would be about conspiracy theorys it would have been called facts. There talk about them as Conspiracy theorys which is all they are. Then it moves into the events and facts and allows you to form your own opinion on whats going on. I think the first part of the documentary about it belongs there.

Yes, but I've pointed out a disproven conspiracy theory on your article number 3, which you contend is one of the pages that should be all factual. It isn't.

This weakens support for your claim that the other articles are factual.

[Athens]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Yes, but I've pointed out a disproven conspiracy theory on your article number 3, which you contend is one of the pages that should be all factual. It isn't.

This weakens support for your claim that the other articles are factual.

You showed me a Washington Post article saying its false, I said I would accept your word for it, but I havent seen any HARD proof saying its totally false.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
You showed me a Washington Post article saying its false, I said I would accept your word for it, but I havent seen any HARD proof saying its totally false.

Your conspiracy theory, your burden of proof.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your conspiracy theory, your burden of proof.

or...it could just be a starting point for discussion.


remember: discussion board?

to the thread in general: at any rate, I think nearly everyone has piled on the original poster at this point, to continue to do so is just prolonging abuse. Those that feel the links are hogwash have already stated so.
What remains now is for people to discuss it from any angle.

Honestly, sometimes I think this forum is the anti-discussion forum, where members spend more time trying to inhibit discussion and shut down threads than anything else.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
or...it could just be a starting point for discussion.


remember: discussion board?

to the thread in general: at any rate, I think nearly everyone has piled on the original poster at this point, to continue to do so is just prolonging abuse. Those that feel the links are hogwash have already stated so.
What remains now is for people to discuss it from any angle.

Honestly, sometimes I think this forum is the anti-discussion forum, where members spend more time trying to inhibit discussion and shut down threads than anything else.

I'm sure there are discussion boards out there that are friendlier to discussing conspiracy theories. But I'm not going to pretend to take such theories seriously just for the sake of discussion. If something is bunk, it is bunk and there really isn't a whole lot more to say, nor any particular benefit to sugarcoating the fact.

[Athens]

The Saudi Connection, The Inelligence Breakdown and the Congressional Report are the facts, the first article is call The Speculation, so go look up a english dictionary and see what the world Speculation means



Btw there is so much in there on the 4 articles, are you saying every single thing is bunk when you have only shown ONE and I repeat ONE that might not be the case, something that has been repeated on DOZENS AND DOZENS of sites... I think thats a little unfair.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
The Saudi Connection, The Inelligence Breakdown and the Congressional Report are the facts, the first article is call The Speculation, so go look up a english dictionary and see what the world Speculation means

What's the inelegance breakdown? It sounds a drag queen learning to walk in heels.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
or...it could just be a starting point for discussion.


remember: discussion board?

SNIP

Honestly, sometimes I think this forum is the anti-discussion forum, where members spend more time trying to inhibit discussion and shut down threads than anything else.

I'm sorry, but I was specifically instructed by another poster in this thread to not discuss this point. Now you're telling me to that I shouldn't discuss it, in order to increase discussion?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What's the inelegance breakdown? It sounds a drag queen learning to walk in heels.

Strictly Ballroom, my friend!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Athens:
The Saudi Connection, The Inelligence Breakdown and the Congressional Report are the facts, the first article is call The Speculation, so go look up a english dictionary and see what the world Speculation means



Btw there is so much in there on the 4 articles, are you saying every single thing is bunk when you have only shown ONE and I repeat ONE that might not be the case, something that has been repeated on DOZENS AND DOZENS of sites... I think thats a little unfair.

Again, you're calling the Intelligence Breakdown (which includes the false Disgruntled-DEA-Israeli-Accusation) fact, when it is clearly not, at least with respect to that theory.

Repeating a disproven theory on "DOZENS AND DOZENS" of web sites does not make it suddenly true, and it is absolutely correct to dispute it. Fair? The world isn't fair, and most attempts to make it so fly in the face of justice.

[Athens]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Again, you're calling the Intelligence Breakdown (which includes the false Disgruntled-DEA-Israeli-Accusation) fact, when it is clearly not, at least with respect to that theory.

Repeating a disproven theory on "DOZENS AND DOZENS" of web sites does not make it suddenly true, and it is absolutely correct to dispute it. Fair? The world isn't fair, and most attempts to make it so fly in the face of justice.

Ok so you said that was bunk fine, there is tons more on that page that you havent addressed yet.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Athens:
Ok so you said that was bunk fine, there is tons more on that page that you havent addressed yet.

The Saudi Connection was already well-questioned above. Just because a business relationship with a sitting president and a Saudi family existed does not mean that the president colluded with the terrorist of that family.

The Intelligence Breakdown relies on the disproven theory among other things. It also posits that intelligence was well-informed. Intelligence wasn't well informed. It's easy to point fingers after the fact, but the truth is no-one had done this before. Intelligence gets looked at with extreme skepticism, and risks get weighed. The site claims a laptop was found with plots to assasinate the Pope among other things. If any one of those dozen plots had been carried out besides 9/11, we'd still be hearing this 'intelligence breakdown' crock- This information would not qualify as what has been termed "actionable intelligence." Unless Ruppert is suggesting that we should have shut down all commercial air traffic from 1997 until… well, until when exactly? This, like many of other "smoking gun" offers no information about specific dates, or even the specific airports from where such attacks would be launched. Moreover, the revelations included such possible targets as the Eiffel Tower. The notion that we could have provided interminable air defenses for such a large range of targets is ridiculous.


The IIRO theory contains the words, 'chances are, if the FBI had investigated..' and, 'the IIRO had offices in northern Va., where the terrorists stayed.' Let's see, chances are, retrospect makes connecting dots easy. I know a few people who live in northern Va. Doesn't make them terrorists. One's a police officer in Alexandria, the other is a high school teacher.

That's enough of that article, it's got three goofball theories on it, not fact- just a lot of suppositions.

The Congressional Report suffers from different problems. It speaks of missing pages and redacted text (blacked out, for those who don't know the meaning of 'redacted.') It clearly states that Eleanor Hill could not confirm what was in the missing pages. Names were blacked out. Information is removed from public reports when the information is still valuable as a secret, or when releasing it will endanger someone in the field. Less so when there's a cover-up, as this article wants us to believe. Really, there's so little there to comment on, other than the article trying to assert that which it cannot know from the redactions or omissions. Great way to present fact.

The Interviews page is likewise untrustworthy: Every single interview is an edited transcript. Show me an uncut untampered with audio or video. Without that, the transcription is suspect of succumbing to editorial bias.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
[B]I'm sorry, but I was specifically instructed by another poster in this thread to not discuss this point. Now you're telling me to that I shouldn't discuss it, in order to increase discussion?

no, I don't think I"m telling you that, am I?

reread my post and the one it responded to.

Simey told the originator the burden of proof was on him to prove a theory, and I made the point that sometimes a thread is a launching point for a discussion, even if the original source material is faulty. Why does starting a thread here have to be absolutely admissable in a court of law? Its a discussion board, not a courtroom.
I tire of the badgering people must endure on this forum just to bring up topics for discussion -- even when you say "discuss and feel free to disagree", the originator gets pointlessly attacked for being partisan.

And, you're taking the exact OPPOSITE interpretation of my post, implying that I want you to NOT speak to the topic. If you reread my post, is that what I'm saying? No, it isn't.

[moki]

Originally posted by Athens:
Why did I post this? Because Americans really are being kept in the dark and need to know the facts from a OUTSIDE source that isnt controlled by US Government, American Public Opinion or Money.

Thank you for enlightening the unwashed masses here in the USA. We have no access to alternate media sources or the Internet, so we're ignorant when it comes to world news and events. We need Canada to be a beacon of light, shining down the truth upon us.

It has all become clear to me now. The military/industrial/corporate complex in the US is controlling all of our lives, and our minds through the media. They are attempting to hide from us the aliens in Area 51, the shooter on the grassy knoll, that the lunar landing was a fraud staged on Hollywood studios, and that 9/11 was caused by the CIA and/or the Mossad.

Now that I've discovered the truth, no doubt I don't have long to live before the black helicopters swoop down on my house and take me away. So I will simply say that is has been nice knowing you all. Goodbye.

[DBursey]

Here's one Canadian's point of view, tangential as it is to the topic at hand:

My business partner's brother in law died in his 105th floor office of 1 World Trade Center. His little girl is 4 years old and only now beginning to understand what happened to her dad.

A friend's son in law also died in the same tower.

My wife's classmate's husband piloted United Flight 93 that went down in Pennsylvania.

To me, 9/11 is all about lives lost and families torn apart. Over two years gone, and each family's pain is stirred afresh this holiday season.

Kindly excuse my self indulgent post. The office is quiet, and I'm feeling a little introspective this morning.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by moki:
Thank you for enlightening the unwashed masses here in the USA. We have no access to alternate media sources or the Internet, so we're ignorant when it comes to world news and events. We need Canada to be a beacon of light, shining down the truth upon us.

Having access to alternate media sources or the Internet doesn't necessarily mean that they are taken advantage of. I've encountered many people that will simply tow the party line and not even acknowledge alternative perspectives.

Sometimes a beacon of light is necessary to show you that which you choose not to see.

[davesimondotcom]

Just a quick point - "facts" can't be from anyone's "POV" - not Canadians, not Americans, not Saudis. Facts are just that. Facts.

Theories or thoughts or opinions can be from a point of view.

Just a minor point of order.

[boots]

Athens: Every hour of every day, say "I am superman" 10 times. After a month, jump off a building and see if you can fly.

I'm with vmarks on this one. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't suddenly become true.

[Athens]

Originally posted by boots:
Athens: Every hour of every day, say "I am superman" 10 times. After a month, jump off a building and see if you can fly.

I'm with vmarks on this one. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't suddenly become true.

Ok then tell me why some things are unture instead of just saying its all untrue.. This is supose t be discussion not none of its true and leave it at that. There are alot in there that I find hard to believe isnt true. But no one wants to address it, its like there afraid to come to terms with the truth.

And for the other guy yes Facts from a Canadian POV, those are the facts that we have from what we can see and have access too. Facts like truth is subject to human nature.

[vmarks]

I addressed it. I addressed each page, and showed untruths or speculation that can best be classified as conjecture or opinion.

Do you really require every single sentence be picked apart to get that what they're putting forth as fact is completely unreliable and unbelievable? Would you settle for each subsection? Hasn't the debunking I've done thus far suggested to you that the rest is likewise unreliable or meaningless?

You suggest that there's a kernel of truth there. I respond to you saying, "The best lies are the ones with a kernel of truth."

There's nothing really to discuss when you continue to rely on untruths and wild speculation and insist it's fact.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Athens:
Facts like truth is subject to human nature.

And the facts in this case...what do they say about human nature in your town?

Vancouver, Canada - Vancouver is facing the worst outbreak of syphilis per capita in the developed world, with city health officials fearful of a looming epidemic of the sexually transmitted disease once thought almost wiped out in North America.

About 254 new cases have been diagnosed locally this year authorities said early this week - more than the total for North America in two decades, with more expected, said Dr Michael Rekart of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.

"There's a lot of unsafe sex going on in Vancouver and the disease has simply taken hold," Rekart said.

Until 1997, syphilis was almost non-existent on the North American continent, with only one or two cases reported a year in British Columbia.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And the facts in this case...what do they say about human nature in your town?

Cheap shot.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Cheap shot.

No worse than implying that our president willingly kills people so his 'buddies' in the oil business can get richer.

[moki]

Originally posted by kindbud:
No worse than implying that our president willingly kills people so his 'buddies' in the oil business can get richer.

This is one of the more ridiculous notions put forward. May I ask exactly what proof you have of this?

[pooka]

Originally posted by moki:
May I ask exactly what proof you have of this?

He smoked it.