[version]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

[moki]

Originally posted by version:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

Alright, I guess this explains things. If this is where you are getting your "news", I've gained a new understanding of how your views have been formed.

Look, the media the world over are whores. They will pick up anything sensational that comes around. If there was any truth to any of the nonsense that is published on sites like this (and the same goes for whack-job conservative sites too), it would be published by mainstream sources like CNN, or if you don't like them, the BBC, or if you don't like them, any number of others.

The media **lives** for juicy stories like these. They don't pass on them because of a conspiracy, or because some evil mastermind is controlling them, they pass on them because they simply are not accurate, or at the very least, they are ideologically distorted beyond recognition.

I can find web sites detailing how 9/11 was really a Jewish conspiracy, and proceed to explain it in demi-convincing pseudo-fact. That doesn't make it so.

[moki]

here ya go... have fun...

http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/saying_121101.asp

[version]

Originally posted by moki:
Alright, I guess this explains things. If this is where you are getting your "news", I've gained a new understanding of how your views have been formed.

Look, the media the world over are whores. They will pick up anything sensational that comes around. If there was any truth to any of the nonsense that is published on sites like this (and the same goes for whack-job conservative sites too), it would be published by mainstream sources like CNN, or if you don't like them, the BBC, or if you don't like them, any number of others.

The media **lives** for juicy stories like these. They don't pass on them because of a conspiracy, or because some evil mastermind is controlling them, they pass on them because they simply are not accurate, or at the very least, they are ideologically distorted beyond recognition.

I can find web sites detailing how 9/11 was really a Jewish conspiracy, and proceed to explain it in demi-convincing pseudo-fact. That doesn't make it so.

if you look at all my others posts, you'll know that I love to refer to the BBC, and other news agencies that qualify in your mind as being credible. That story was widely circulated anyway.

I've noticed your tactic, avid answering the actual content of reading mattter, when it is contrary to your very biased views. Nice one.

[version]

Please follow the links, and references to teh BBC, and others here. Just one example of how the big media do cover, adn report on things liek I mentioned. you just don't notice it, for whatever reason, or maybe you just watch FOX on tv, and don't bother with international, or online reports in the big media outlets. They seem to cover them, then take them off rather quickly, wonder why?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...wontstand.html

[moki]

Originally posted by version:
I've noticed your tactic, avid answering the actual content of reading mattter, when it is contrary to your very biased views. Nice one.

No, I see no point in responding to sensationalistic, unsubstantiated nonsense. It's like me telling you to respond to this:

The "Publisher's Corner" written by Clayton Douglas attempts to cast doubt on the "official" version of events, suggesting that it was a "made-for-TV-attack," that drove "an entranced, shocked, mind-numbed population�into a nationalistic fervor." According to Clayton, "the television embedded the concept that Arabs and/or Muslims were behind the attack and when Americans responded as they were programmed by the networks to do, the FBI got their Hate Crime legislation justified." If this was actually arranged, then, "who stands to benefit from a war between Muslim and Christian nations?" Clayton asks. The answer, to Clayton, is apparently clear: "Did you know that in July, the Twin Towers were leased to the 'Silverstein Companies' for a mere 688 million dollars? Did you know they were insured? Did you know that a Pakistani Television station reported that none of the 4000 Israelis and Jews who worked in the building were killed?�Could the Mossad be involved? Could this be an exaggerated case of Jewish lightning?"

...I mean, there's just no point, is there, other than dismissing it as the BS that it is?

[version]

Oh, btw, you were wondering why the reputed news agencies don;'t seem to cover such radical issues like i mentioned, well, they do, and they get taken offline rather too quickly Luckily many of us archive them, just for people like yourself who might think these are just conspiracy sites, blowing hot air. Let me go through my records for you, and I'll give you as much data as you need, all from the so-called reputable sources. I'll do this later, after work.

[version]

Originally posted by moki:
No, I see no point in responding to sensationalistic, unsubstantiated nonsense. It's like me telling you to respond to this:



...I mean, there's just no point, is there, other than dismissing it as the BS that it is?

Really? and why do you dismiss this so offhand? What I do, Moki, is take those sensationalist reports, and check them out, rather than dismissing them so quickly as you seem to do, just because on the surface they seem to be so fantastic.

[moki]

Originally posted by version:
Oh, btw, you were wondering why the reputed news agencies don;'t seem to cover such radical issues like i mentioned, well, they do, and they get taken offline rather too quickly .

erm... and why do you think they are taken offline? And by whom?

[version]

Like other articles, they reached their end of life. You do realise that just one example of this, was the Israeli connection to 9/11, the Israeli spy ring was covered in the BBC, ABC, and others, I have it all here, and that the investigation is STILL going on.

[Lerkfish]

moki, as a suggestion, kindly state ONCE you have a problem with a source and move on, out of courtesy to the rest of the people TRYING to discuss something in a thread.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
moki, as a suggestion, kindly state ONCE you have a problem with a source and move on, out of courtesy to the rest of the people TRYING to discuss something in a thread.

As far as I can tell, there were no other people discussing anything in this thread. Regardless, forgive me for wanting discussion that's more than baseless accusations.

[version]

I'm always sceptical when peopel resort to the 'baseless accusations' line, since it seesm to me that many of these stories actually list quite credible sources.

Oh, here's just one link for the BBC covering the israeli spy ring.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2294487.stm

[christ]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
moki, as a suggestion, kindly state ONCE you have a problem with a source and move on, out of courtesy to the rest of the people TRYING to discuss something in a thread.

Rest of the people?

I only saw a private chat between moki and version - what caused you to step in Lerk?

[AutoJC]

Did Bush lie about knwoing about the 9/11 planes?

Yet another source that sidesteps the real issue that was behind the 9-11 attacks.

Consider carefully, instead, America's unprincipaled responses to the other terrorist attacks against us. All such responses ignored the fact that rogue states sponsored such attacks. Instead we go after Abdul Rahman and jail him and his pet goat! We're still hunting Bin Laden, even though he's just a ringleader among many. Yet we negotiate peace with Arafat, a murderer and major terrorist leader.

Bush was too naive to realize that we were so vulnerable to attack.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by version:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

That statement was withdrawn... so it's not really valid.

It's on CNN.com because they have a personal policy against deleting articles, regardless of status (for historical purposes).

It was withdrawn becuase the statement was "Misinterpreted".

Can't find the linkage for the explanation... perhaps later, class now.

[version]

Originally posted by AutoJC:

Bush was too naive to realize that we were so vulnerable to attack.

doubtful I think. The US are on record as conducting mock terrorist simulations in the early 80s, by acting out how 4 planes could be flown into LA and what the carnage would be. They knew all along, and the inteligence was strong; but then again, with Israel spreading the fake inteligence to the US, how could it not be strong?

[version]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
That statement was withdrawn... so it's not really valid.

It's on CNN.com because they have a personal policy against deleting articles, regardless of status (for historical purposes).

It was withdrawn becuase the statement was "Misinterpreted".

Can't find the linkage for the explanation... perhaps later, class now.

it's not one statement thoogh, they're is quite a few. CNN aren't exactly the bastions of fair journalism.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by christ:
Rest of the people?

I only saw a private chat between moki and version - what caused you to step in Lerk?

heh.

I noticed that, too.

Looked like an effort to fend off an attack against yet another bogus CONSPIRACY THEORY.

See, if these conspiracy theories are wrong - then Dubya is right.

Liberals can't stand for that to happen

[version]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh.

I noticed that, too.

Looked like an effort to fend off an attack against yet another bogus CONSPIRACY THEORY.

See, if these conspiracy theories are wrong - then Dubya is right.

Liberals can't stand for that to happen

Who said we were liberals? I'm just against blatant injustice, and hypocrisy. Conspiracy theories, well, well, is the Israeli spy ring a conspiracy theory? nah, didn't think so. How about how you right-wingers try to excuse the massacres of innocents, and tyrants? How about Sabra & Shatila? Still trying to excuse Sharon are we. See, it goes both ways, you can't tolerate anything right-wing to be linked with anything horrible, and so you are forced to apologise, or explain away such things, just makes you look as bad you think we look.

[Zimphire]

There posts like this, and I am called a troll.

[version]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There posts like this, and I am called a troll.

Wish you could type properly so I'd know what you were talking about.

[macvillage.net]

It was a real statement.

But it was retracted, or withdrawn.

So it's not an official statement from a US official anymore.

Therefore no conspiracy.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It was a real statement.

But it was retracted, or withdrawn.

So it's not an official statement from a US official anymore.

Therefore no conspiracy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

well it is still up at whithouse.gov

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by version:
Wish you could type properly so I'd know what you were talking about.

You are right. I apologize. I was laughing too hard after reading the link, I should have known better than to post.

{Edit}

This coming from a guy that spelled knowing as "knwoing" in the topic.

[voodoo]

Zimphire
09-22-2003 04:14 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Zimphire
09-22-2003 04:14 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Stop showing off. We know you are boring.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Alright, I guess this explains things. If this is where you are getting your "news", I've gained a new understanding of how your views have been formed.

Look, the media the world over are whores. They will pick up anything sensational that comes around. If there was any truth to any of the nonsense that is published on sites like this (and the same goes for whack-job conservative sites too), it would be published by mainstream sources like CNN, or if you don't like them, the BBC, or if you don't like them, any number of others.

The media **lives** for juicy stories like these. They don't pass on them because of a conspiracy, or because some evil mastermind is controlling them, they pass on them because they simply are not accurate, or at the very least, they are ideologically distorted beyond recognition.

I can find web sites detailing how 9/11 was really a Jewish conspiracy, and proceed to explain it in demi-convincing pseudo-fact. That doesn't make it so.

as voodoo points out, it is up on the whitehouse's own website
....I assume you accept that as a conservative-sanctioned news source?

[adamk]

maybe i am reading too much into bush's quote but he may have meant to say

"And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane [had] hit the tower"

-or-

"And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower"

these two senses are how i interpreted the statement the first time i read it; that he saw that a plane had hit the building. the article points out correctly that video of that first crash did not surface until later.

but i can understand how it also sounds like he saw the first plane actually hit the tower. no one has ever accused the man of being particularily articulate or clear in his speaking.

the article also points out a question that i have had for a while. why was bush not immediately evacuated from the press conference? cheney was physically removed from the whitehouse (or wherever he was) and whisked away to a secure location. meanwhile, millions knew the whereabouts of the president. and he sat there for ~20 minutes after the second plane had the tower, which was the first indication for a lot of people, that this wasn't simply an accident.

my favorite quote though:

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida.

whoa! florida!? i can't believe it! and i thought he was going to say 'shocked and awed'.

adam

[edit: fixed some tense issues]

[version]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are right. I apologize. I was laughing too hard after reading the link, I should have known better than to post.

{Edit}

This coming from a guy that spelled knowing as "knwoing" in the topic.

hehe, yeah, but my typos are spectacular,

[version]

Oh look here, my little conspiracy theory turns out to be fact. Interpretations aside, it is fact that it exists. All you little gun-toting right-wingers can crawl under your little nuclear bunker to try and conjure up some way to mock us later.

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
...See, if these conspiracy theories are wrong - then Dubya is right....

Nah - it is possible that Dubya is still wrong, even if all of the conspiracy theories are tripe.

(Not definite, but certainly possible)

[ThinkInsane]

More of what really happened.

Yep, you guessed it, George W. started planning this attack, originally with 5 hijacked planes from each coast, way back in 1996.

Amazing foresight on his part, knowing full well that the Illumianti would arrange for him to be President at the time they would be carried out. And you guys all thought he was stupid.

Stupid like a FOX!

Supporters of the theory put forth in the initial post of this thread may find this page interesting and useful. No need to thank me, just doing my job.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by version:
doubtful I think. The US are on record as conducting mock terrorist simulations in the early 80s, by acting out how 4 planes could be flown into LA and what the carnage would be. They knew all along, and the inteligence was strong; but then again, with Israel spreading the fake inteligence to the US, how could it not be strong?

What fake intelligence? Provide proof!

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by version:
Who said we were liberals? I'm just against blatant injustice, and hypocrisy. Conspiracy theories, well, well, is the Israeli spy ring a conspiracy theory? nah, didn't think so. How about how you right-wingers try to excuse the massacres of innocents, and tyrants? How about Sabra & Shatila? Still trying to excuse Sharon are we. See, it goes both ways, you can't tolerate anything right-wing to be linked with anything horrible, and so you are forced to apologise, or explain away such things, just makes you look as bad you think we look.

Blatant Injustices and hypocrisy?

By what standard?

By the standard of Neturei Karta?

[osiris]

To clear matters up for everyone, why don't we have a nice open investigation on the events of 9/11 , uncensored and free from White House stonewalling. How about a Q&A session with Dubya, but without the scripted questions?

NORAD/FAA/FBI/CIA/Pentagon & the world's most powerful Air Force failed us miserably on 9/11. Why? And why do we reward these agencies with record budget increases?

Of course that investigation will never happen. But what is helpful is the classic "who profited the most" question. Who had/has the most to gain by NOT investigating?

You don't need to be a righty or lefty to ask these questions. Just an American. We do pay for all this crap, and yet we always seem to profit the least.

[version]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Blatant Injustices and hypocrisy?

By what standard?

By the standard of Neturei Karta?

Well, I'm not a member of Karta, never said I was.

Standard? well, everyone has as standard for things; I'm sure you do too.

[version]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
What fake intelligence? Provide proof!

Did you read the link I provided earlier, to the BBC website, discussin the Israelie spy ring? Well, if you take the sources from that, then do some investigation, you'll see that it's not as clear cut as you might think. Ok, fake inteligences, well, if the ISraelis were saying that a bunch of Arabs, who couldn't fly, were to commit a terrorist act in the US, and then it happens, but it turns out that the hijackers, and the whole setup, is extremely bogus; then I think we're facing some fake, and deceptive inteligence. Wonder why?

[version]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
More of what really happened.

Yep, you guessed it, George W. started planning this attack, originally with 5 hijacked planes from each coast, way back in 1996.

Amazing foresight on his part, knowing full well that the Illumianti would arrange for him to be President at the time they would be carried out. And you guys all thought he was stupid.

Stupid like a FOX!

Supporters of the theory put forth in the initial post of this thread may find this page interesting and useful. No need to thank me, just doing my job.

So based on your sarcastic report, we must magically just put aside any version of 9/11 that, in yourmind, doesn't fit the criterion for a credible story? Get real. What might be evidence for you, might be pile of crap for more enquiring minds. Yes, you might mock single websites, touching on theories which might sound far fetched, but once you see the mainstream discussing them, many websites covering them, and documentaries being made, then I think your stance seems a little stupid, in my book.

Would you like to discuss this properly? I'm sure I can add plenty to coat your mind in things to think about.

[Uday's Carcass]

Allah in Paradise! You never quit with this crap. I'm glad that I have enough of a life that I don't have much time to flitter away on your insane conspiracy theories and nonsensical defense of trash like Gadhafi.

oh my! it was a Mossad conspiracy!
oh my! Bush worked with bin Laden to plan 9/11!

douche bag.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by version:
So based on your sarcastic report, we must magically just put aside any version of 9/11 that, in yourmind, doesn't fit the criterion for a credible story? Get real. What might be evidence for you, might be pile of crap for more enquiring minds. Yes, you might mock single websites, touching on theories which might sound far fetched, but once you see the mainstream discussing them, many websites covering them, and documentaries being made, then I think your stance seems a little stupid, in my book.

Would you like to discuss this properly? I'm sure I can add plenty to coat your mind in things to think about.

We've already had this conversation. You aren't going to convince me that the bullshit contained in your link is anything but that. For everything in there, I can find a link to counter it. The fact remains that any evidence to the contrary of your version, Version, is decried as just another gov. conspiracy. Hard to debate it when you won't except anything but far-fetched, illogical, paranoid fantasy. believe what you must, but don't be so condescending as to expect everyone to believe as you do.

Credible professionals in every field involved have offered expert opinions on things like why the buildings collapsed in the manner that they did, extensive computer models have been built and scientifically verified, and yet you refuse to believe it because of the ramblings of idiots like Michael Rupport.

[Spliffdaddy]

Code:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
>                . --->    *SMACKDOWN*
  >            . 
    >        .
      >     .  
       >  .

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Allah in Paradise! You never quit with this crap. I'm glad that I have enough of a life that I don't have much time to flitter away on your insane conspiracy theories and nonsensical defense of trash like Gadhafi.

oh my! it was a Mossad conspiracy!
oh my! Bush worked with bin Laden to plan 9/11!

douche bag.

[version]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Allah in Paradise! You never quit with this crap. I'm glad that I have enough of a life that I don't have much time to flitter away on your insane conspiracy theories and nonsensical defense of trash like Gadhafi.

oh my! it was a Mossad conspiracy!
oh my! Bush worked with bin Laden to plan 9/11!

douche bag.

What crap? So far you've brought up baseless topics on Sabra & Shattila in which I provided more evidence for Sharon being involved, that you did, and you ran off. Then we have the matter of the 9/11 thread, in which I said Bush made an error in letting go of his pre-knowledge of the event; all you right-wingers laughed at me, and then someone shows you that waht he said, is on the ACTUAL whitehouse website. So get real with the personal attacks, and deal with what the content of these posts says, rather than dismissive putdowns.

How about, there you go again with being a complete fcukwit when you spout off drivel on ISrael being the benevolent nation, and somehow all t hose ISraeli attrocities never happened, or the Israelis are completely innocent. Now who is the fantasist? Who is the one talking about conspiracy theories, you must be a real mad knob to think that Sharon had nothing to do with Sabra.

You see, when you accuse someone of such things, it cuts both ways. SO while you call me mad, or a conspiracy theorist, you better apply that to yoursself when you talk about Sharon and Sabra & Shatilla.

[version]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:


Credible professionals in every field involved have offered expert opinions on things like why the buildings collapsed in the manner that they did, extensive computer models have been built and scientifically verified, and yet you refuse to believe it because of the ramblings of idiots like Michael Rupport.

Yes, you got it. The man in charge of the disposal of the debris IS ON RECORD, and was on TV saying that there could be no proper investigation ,since Bush wanted the wreckage of all buildings disposed of as soon as possible. He said it was impossible to investigate it properly, and the rubble ended up being sold to India, funny that, eh?

Credible experts? Well, that goes both ways, we also have credible experts talking about, and debating the opposite of your experts.
For every expert you prop up, I can do the same, So let's just say we both disagree, and let history make its decision.
So get real, and stop acting so dumb at times. You pretend to be high and mighty in conversation, but you come across just as a dismissive person with your condescending attitude.

[moki]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
We've already had this conversation. You aren't going to convince me that the bullshit contained in your link is anything but that. For everything in there, I can find a link to counter it. The fact remains that any evidence to the contrary of your version, Version, is decried as just another gov. conspiracy. Hard to debate it when you won't except anything but far-fetched, illogical, paranoid fantasy. believe what you must, but don't be so condescending as to expect everyone to believe as you do.

Credible professionals in every field involved have offered expert opinions on things like why the buildings collapsed in the manner that they did, extensive computer models have been built and scientifically verified, and yet you refuse to believe it because of the ramblings of idiots like Michael Rupport.

Given that whackos still think we never landed on the moon, and have a detailed argument as to why/how it was staged... I think that trying to convince someone who is bent and determined to believe in fringe conspiracy theories is useless.

[thunderous_funker]

Does no one remember the massive scandal that started in May of 2002? No one remembers the headline "BUSH KNEW" in the NY Post? No one remembers the series of massively incriminating revelations that resulted in several reluctant admissions (and trapped lies) from the administration about what it knew and when?

In May of 2002, people were describing the results of these leaks and revelations as "a freight train" headed for the Bush administration. It was widely speculated that this could be the end of the administration. Voices started calling for a massive Blue Ribbon panel to investigate what the administration knew and when. The Bush administration fought tough and nail to prevent the formation of a panel and eventually had to give in because the scandal was spinning wildly out of control.

No one remembers this?

I seem to remember KellyHogan getting banned for constantly posting about it. And every one of his sources being dismissed out of hand simply because no one wanted to agree with KellyHogan.

Here's a brief recap from memory (any corrections are welcome):

1. Questions about "how could this happen" are answered with the notion that this was "out of the blue". No one had an inkling of attacks, threats, plots or that even such a tactic was feasible.

2. Leak about intel reports that OBL had plans, plots and several warnings. Foreign intel agnecies say they had warnings. Gary Hart says he saw it coming and points to commission he participated in.

3. Administration says warnings were not specific and no one knew of plans to hijack or use plans as weapons.

4. Leaks about intel warnings pointing to hijackings and using planes as weapons stretching back to 1997.

5. Administration says they knew of "general threats" but nothing that could have pointed to 9/11.

6. Leak about security breafing given to Bush in August 2001 while on vacation in Texas with very clear info on hijackings, soft targets, planes as weapons, etc. (The briefing is still sealed due to Execute Priveledge.)

7. Leaks about Zacarias Mousaui investigation, the infamous Pheonix memo, Florida flight school, etc. FBI agents turn whistleblowers on how management refused to act on hunches, warnings and threats.

8. Leaks about 9/11 hijackers were known and watched but never detained.

9. Afghan war starts. Nation forgets massive scandal.

Here is a CNN timeline or what warnings were ignored.

Here is a collection of articles from various sources as the scandal was breaking across newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Here is a great article reviewing the preliminary findings of the 9/11 investigation and detailing the possible failures.

[Zimphire]

Actually to be fair, Clinton was warned as well.

Clinton was also told were Osama was at one time. He choose to do nothing.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Actually to be fair, Clinton was warned as well.

Clinton was also told were Osama was at one time. He choose to do nothing.

I don't think firing 75 cruise missles qualifies as "nothing". But yes, Clinton had lots of opportunity to do something about Al'Queda and had little success to show for his efforts.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I don't think firing 75 cruise missles qualifies as "nothing". But yes, Clinton had lots of opportunity to do something about Al'Queda and had little success to show for his efforts.

I was talking about the time Clinton was told exactly were Osama was staying, No cruise missiles where launched. Not that I know of anyhow.