Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#811    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,546 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:49 PM

I read that Walmart bought up the complete supply of novelty USA flags days after 9/11.  Could Walmart have slammed those planes into the towers for profit?

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers

#812    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,404 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:57 PM

View PostSweetpumper, on 13 February 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

I read that Walmart bought up the complete supply of novelty USA flags days after 9/11.  Could Walmart have slammed those planes into the towers for profit?
Nah ! THey were busy buying up all the AR 15`s and Smelly-Belly Jell for Hot Flashes ! You know Walmart ! Always one step ahead of Insanity !

This is a Work in Progress!

#813    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:21 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

The point of the Dahmer analogy is to illustrate the absurdity and spin involved in boiling down a complicated question to a simple, dichotomous, misleading, 'preventing an attack' or 'allowing an attack'.  You're right that the knowledge they had of Dahmer was incomparable to what the CIA knew of the terrorists, but in a vastly more relevant way the information they had is entirely incomparable in the opposite direction, because there is a serious crime occurring right in front of their faces. Not an unspecified attack by unspecified people at an unspecified date/time and unspecified specific manner like our hapless intelligence agencies who are not communicating with each other. These cops had direct evidence of a naked minor who was clearly drugged/drunk and raped, and they didn't even run Dahmer's name through the system nor verify the identity of the minor. You really honestly think as a comparison that the CIA/FBI had better 'sufficient evidence' of the impending attack than that? Can you see how the cops screwed up royally in this case, it doesn't really matter that it's Dahmer, do you really think somehow they are lacking probable cause here?

The Dahmer cops here pretty clearly screwed up, they failed to investigate a probable crime. No one suspects anything conspiratorial though, we all just accept that either these specific cops messed up or there's something more systemic in that city's department or maybe in law enforcment as a whole that was possibly the issue that resulted in Dahmer not being stopped and more lives being lost. I don't know how you've just swept away or compensated for these type of mundane, people-make-mistakes options, that are not at all unusual and in fact incredibly common especially in government agencies.

There is nothing absurd or misleading about the questions.  The answers are designed to weigh up two options through comparison to actual events, answering the question, “did the CIA action best prevent an attack or facilitate an attack?”  The answer is simply, “the CIA action best facilitated an attack.”  I’m sure you don’t like that, but it is fact, and one that should be considered along with the wider body of evidence.  The questions are equally fair applied to the Dahmer case though less useful, as I have shown, it is necessary to understand background to the events.

Anyhow, Dahmer, Dahmer and more Dahmer.  Thank you, but as suggested in my last post, this is incomparable to the situation on 9/11.  Not only was intelligence at the forefront different – the two police officers involved were apparently unaware of Dahmer’s criminal history – in addition there was no known crime to act upon and no attempt by the officers to impede other authorities.  I agree, failure to prevent the murder of Sinthasomphone was clearly an accident due to lack of knowledge and poor police follow-up work/inaction.

In contrast, at risk of repeating myself, CIA agents on the case were aware of the 9/11 hijackers connection to ‘Al Qaeda’ and attacks on the USS Cole and US embassies.  The aforementioned crimes were already committed, the case underway, and along with an immigration violation were sufficient to act upon – indeed should have been acted upon, according to law and standard procedure.  The accompanying warning from the FBI could not have been clearer, “these guys are clearly bad” and “someone will die”, and yet the CIA blocked action – the CIA blocked upholding of the law and standard procedure.  All agents involved, unlike the Dahmer police officers, were in possession of this intelligence.  What followed was not due to lack of information or inaction.

Then account for the CIA’s Saudi agent who actually assisted the hijackers and it’s ever further from the Dahmer case - agents had the knowledge and were aware of the threat, along with an operation and deliberate moves surrounding the hijackers prior to 9/11.  The intelligence involvement and ongoing action with the hijackers is entirely incomparable to that one instance of inaction from the Dahmer police officers.  Heck, did police officers pay Dahmer’s rent and put him in contact with a combat training school?  The CIA’s Saudi agent paid the hijackers’ rent and put them in contact with flight schools.

Enough of the Dahmer case, it is not relevant to the specific 9/11 circumstances.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

I would think at a minimum the myriad explanations of this type need to be dealt with in order to arrive at, 'the CIA prevented the FBI from going after people who turned out to be 9/11 terrorists, and thus, the best explanation for this is a conspiracy'.  As I stated, you're leaving out all kinds of nuance and other possible answers, such as, 'the CIA was trying to work covertly to infiltrate Al Qaeda in order to better prevent attacks ongoing'. Do you have an issue with this approach, with undercover work? You know that sometimes that requires not going after criminals for relatively less serious crimes so that you can catch them in a big one/gain more intelligence/etc? In other words, that making those kinds of decisions to not bust people as soon as you can is inherently risky?

This is more like it, you are being serious now.  Well, it’s a ‘conspiracy’ even if you believe the CIA were trying to infiltrate ‘Al Qaeda’ (and I do believe this is what lower level CIA agents were told).  It is still a ‘conspiracy’ against the FBI, the law and standard procedure – heads should have rolled, preferably those who put such an approach in place.  Do I have an issue with this approach?  You mean... except for the fact that it allowed the 9/11 attack, 3,000 deaths and war to proceed?  It would be better to ask, how can you not have an issue with this approach?  An approach which so conveniently supported the new Neocon government ideology.  You have no issue with that?  No questions?

Yes it was risky.  Would you have taken that approach off your own back?  Would you have disregarded the law and standard procedure, allowed known terrorists free passage in America and risked a terrorist attack, to gain some intelligence?  Of course you would not, neither would I, neither would redhen.  It is unreasonable – you don’t gamble with lives like that – unless there is clearly a greater aim to be achieved.  The order to do so came from higher.  The only conclusion is exactly as Richard Clarke said, “it is inexplicable” and “there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information.”  In fact, we know that the order you mention, to not go after the terrorists/catch them in a ‘big one’, came from Bush.  It was described by Condeleeza Rice: President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies.”

What are you not getting?  The Neocon administration stated the requirement for a “new Pearl Harbor”.  The Neocon administration placed an order that facilitated a “new Pearl Harbor”.  That approach resulted in the “new Pearl Harbor”.  The Neocon administration took advantage of that “new Pearl Harbor”.  We have motive, cause, effect, benefit.  The attack did not ‘slip through’, the actions taken facilitated it.  There is no defence for not questioning those involved.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

To put it as nicely as possible, this is just loony. I've read what you quoted from me a couple of times, you know, the questions I just asked that you admit are relevant and that you have supposedly incorporated, and I ain't seeing where you get any of this garbage. The careful, sober, rational reader may note that LG said absolutely diddly-squat about what he personally would tolerate, declare, and/or allow. It's not even properly called a strawman, it's just delusional.  I'm just going to rack this up to you spleen-venting and ignore it, let me know if there's an argument that needs responding to baked in there somewhere.

There sure is an argument, though it doesn’t require response.  Suffice to say that you just labelled your own defence of CIA actions, “loony”.  Look, I just reiterated your suggestions, every one.  For example: -

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 06 February 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

Had our intelligence agencies stopped other potential attacks prior to 9/11 by pouncing on AQ agents as soon as they discovered them, only to find that strategy was not stopping at all the continued attempts, so they had moved on to other strategies?

View PostQ24, on 07 February 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

Let it be known, that because ‘Al Qaeda’ would not stop their attempts of an attack, LG would tolerate the presence of such terrorists on U.S. soil (figure that one out).

I was placing you in a position to test whether you personally find rationale in your own suggestion/such course of action.

And your response: -

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

To put it as nicely as possible, this is just loony.

So, it’s not what you would do, and it’s actually a “loony” suggestion/course of action, so far as you are concerned.

It does seem that we agree.

Now you need to prove that those who set the approach were mentally unstable/“loony”.  Failing that, it appears necessary to invoke an ulterior motive, perhaps such as implementing their pre-stated “catalyzing” and “transforming event”, that would propel their policy.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

I'm not happy about the delay in the investigation either nor Bush's stonewalling, but again it's not like there is absolutely no explanation as to why they would protest it: the investigation is an evaluation of their performance. Was Nixon doing all he could to cooperate with the Watergate investigation? Clinton on Lewinsky?  Reagan on Iran-Contra?  Jesus, any administration at all?

Is it not telling you anything that in all your examples of stonewalling the accused was found guilty?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

The assemblage of this data into what was to happen is hindsight though. Just reading these lines I'm not sure that 'WTC bomber', 'retaliate in Washington', 'hijack an aircraft' should logically be inferred as all referring to the same incident and not separate occurrences for example, you may have other evidence showing that the agents should have taken it that way.  You said you are incorporating my other questions into your analysis, so how many other inspecific threats were there. How many other vague threats turned out to be nothing? How many false alarms do you need until it starts to take an effect on the decisions agents make when confronted with future alarms? Why are you giving me a list of just threats related to 9/11 just from August 2001 if Bin Laden has been threatening since '97, no threats were made in the intervening years?

That’s an interesting note - I just found that Bush specifically requested that information contained in the August 2001 brief I quoted – he specifically asked about threats inside the United States - so he was certainly interested.  Anyhow, it doesn’t matter whether the warnings referred to separate occurrences.  The intelligence warnings in regard to an ‘Al Qaeda’ attack reached a crescendo in Summer 2001 – as CIA director George Tenet put it, “the system was blinking red”.  You need to read the chapter named after that Tenet quote in the 9/11 Commission report to understand the level and severity of threat warnings received – it is necessary to understand these rising and imminent ‘Al Qaeda’ threats were not a drop in the ocean of intelligence... they were the ocean.  Against that backdrop, you cannot rationally do what Bush and the Neocon administration did, or what that “loony” CIA unit did, if you are interested in preventing the foreboding attack.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

I'll keep in mind that this perspective is being offered by someone who thinks scientists who do not agree with a conspiracy and whose opinions and analysis of the details of the WTC collapses are not at all in conflict with the scientific consensus should be tried for treason.

I’ll keep in mind that in lieu of an explanation for your own double-standard, you are trying to make some sort of attack on me, with a false argument too.  Seriously, can you explain why you will come up with any and all kinds of speculative excuses to defend a warmonger Neocon administration and “loony” CIA unit, yet will quickly disregard the word of FBI agents knowledgeable of the case?  The only answer I see is that you are arguing what you want to believe, rather than accepting expert evidence/statements on a fair basis, not to mention refusal to answer questions.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

And under normal procedures, drug dealers...

Dahmer, Challenger, drug dealers, generalizations... anything to avoid the specifics of 9/11.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#814    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:55 AM

View Postredhen, on 11 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Sure, it's possible, lots of things are possible, except contradictory claims. But in inductive reasoning we are looking for the inference to the best explanation.

Perhaps it is worth discussing why the official explanation is not the best.  For one, the way that bin Laden was made out to be the mastermind/director of the attack, far from being best explanation, is sheer propaganda.  Evidence in bin Laden statements, precedent, events and the hijacker backgrounds, etc, indicate that bin Laden was an accessory to the crime at most.  He had foreknowledge and appears to have granted moral support to the operation, but little else.  Where did the funding and real direction come from?  Why was bin Laden held up as the instigator?

A few facts to start off: -

Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks.
Bin Laden credited Atta for the attacks.
Bin Laden has never been found guilty by any legal case.
Bin Laden apparently had to be informed of how much the operation cost.
Bin Laden was informed of the day the attack would take place (i.e. he did not dictate it).
Bin Laden did not appear to know the time the attack would take place.
Bin Laden recordings have been analysed and found to be edited/unverified.
Bin Laden was a prisoner of the ISI after 2001.

There are plenty more details.

Of course this is all quite contradictory to the official claim.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#815    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:06 AM

'9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda



:whistle:


#816    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:10 AM

View Postredhen, on 14 February 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:



so I have to take it you trust the so called official story 100%

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#817    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:36 AM

View PostSweetpumper, on 13 February 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

I read that Walmart bought up the complete supply of novelty USA flags days after 9/11.  Could Walmart have slammed those planes into the towers for profit?

Ah yes! Walmart did it!
Wait til the troothers gobble that one up.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#818    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:38 AM

View PostZaphod222, on 14 February 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

Ah yes! Walmart did it!
Wait til the troothers gobble that one up.

Actually Saudia Arabia did it but shush its a secret.....

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#819    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,114 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:24 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 14 February 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

so I have to take it you trust the so called official story 100%

I do. What I know of it, I cannot say 100% because I do not know every aspect that has been discussed in this forum. But I am now going back to page 1 so I cannot be accused of repeating points, or skipping posts, but I do plan to come back here and support Skyeagle to the best of my ability. I have always been appalled at the way people refuse outright confessions from murderers who danced in the streets, happy they had killed innocent people. I do not believe the Government did this. It has always been too much for me to discuss, as the death of thousands made my heart too heay to debate this atrocity, and people who tried to get the murdering sickos off the hook have always appalled me. So personally, I have not had the strength to speak my piece on this subject. Sorry mate, I have always respected your posting, and right now, that has not changed one bit, but for me, I think the time has come to roll my sleeves up and step up to this plate where Skyeagle is doing much good. I have fought bitterly with Sky in the past over passionate views on other subjects, yet I have to say his experience and his marvellous services to his country, and indeed all of us allied, is something that deserves respect. And indeed, I do respect the man very much. He made me better at defending myself because he made me work my butt off for every answer I gave him. He is one man that does know how the USAF works, and I hope to be able to support him adequately.

This subject has always touched a nerve for me, I do not think that will change here. But it has driven me to support those whom I believe are fighting the good fight. Considering the past I have with Skyeagle, not one person can call me a fanboy, but when a man is right, a man is right, and it is completely my understanding not belief, that Sky is indeed right, and made of the right stuff.




Sky mate, I'll be back in a day or two when I chew through the last 50 odd pages. You know me, I do not go into anything halfassed. Mate, it will be an honor to be on your six. Go get 'em fella. If anyone can right this wrong, you can. With Boon gone, I hope I can fill that space adequately.

Edited by psyche101, 14 February 2013 - 06:25 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#820    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:26 AM

View PostQ24, on 14 February 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

A few facts to start off: -

Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks.

Reality time.

Quote


Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Usama bin Laden made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people. Injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of the presidential election, bin Laden said the United States can avoid another Sept. 11-style attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...l#ixzz2KqrMa9CB


Quote

Bin Laden credited Atta for the attacks.
Bin Laden has never been found guilty by any legal case.

Reality time rerun

Quote


Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...l#ixzz2KqrtR1ZD

Quote

Bin Laden apparently had to be informed of how much the operation cost.
Bin Laden was informed of the day the attack would take place (i.e. he did not dictate it).
Bin Laden did not appear to know the time the attack would take place.

Rerun of the Reality time rerun

Quote


Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...l#ixzz2KqrtR1ZD

Quote

Bin Laden recordings have been analysed and found to be edited/unverified.
Bin Laden was a prisoner of the ISI after 2001.

Let's take a look.

Quote

Osama bin Laden Tape


Al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, broadcast about seven minutes of the tape. The station's spokesman, Jihad Ali Ballout, said Al-Jazeera aired what was "newsworthy and relevant" and refused to describe the unaired portions, including whether they included any threats. Ballout said the station received the tape Friday but would not say how.


Before the tape was aired, the State Department asked the government of Qatar to discourage Al-Jazeera from broadcasting it, a senior State Department official said. In the video, bin Laden accused Bush of misleading Americans by saying the attack was carried out because Al Qaeda "hates freedom." The terrorist leader said his followers have left alone countries that do not threaten Muslims.


"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said. He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...l#ixzz2KqtLAnNW


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#821    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:39 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 14 February 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I do. What I know of it, I cannot say 100% because I do not know every aspect that has been discussed in this forum. But I am now going back to page 1 so I cannot be accused of repeating points, or skipping posts, but I do plan to come back here and support Skyeagle to the best of my ability. I have always been appalled at the way people refuse outright confessions from murderers who danced in the streets, happy they had killed innocent people. I do not believe the Government did this. It has always been too much for me to discuss, as the death of thousands made my heart too heay to debate this atrocity, and people who tried to get the murdering sickos off the hook have always appalled me. So personally, I have not had the strength to speak my piece on this subject. Sorry mate, I have always respected your posting, and right now, that has not changed one bit, but for me, I think the time has come to roll my sleeves up and step up to this plate where Skyeagle is doing much good. I have fought bitterly with Sky in the past over passionate views on other subjects, yet I have to say his experience and his marvellous services to his country, and indeed all of us allied, is something that deserves respect. And indeed, I do respect the man very much. He made me better at defending myself because he made me work my butt off for every answer I gave him. He is one man that does know how the USAF works, and I hope to be able to support him adequately.

This subject has always touched a nerve for me, I do not think that will change here. But it has driven me to support those whom I believe are fighting the good fight. Considering the past I have with Skyeagle, not one person can call me a fanboy, but when a man is right, a man is right, and it is completely my understanding not belief, that Sky is indeed right, and made of the right stuff.




Sky mate, I'll be back in a day or two when I chew through the last 50 odd pages. You know me, I do not go into anything halfassed. Mate, it will be an honor to be on your six. Go get 'em fella. If anyone can right this wrong, you can. With Boon gone, I hope I can fill that space adequately.


News media that lobbys so much to promote an agenda left or right is no longer trust worthy. It`s like watching the news as a fortune teller ot just a teller. The media is not about news. For example Canada has banned basic cable from airing fox news because it lies and has been proven. Hence it`s not legal unless you subscribe for it on cable.  I have fox but only watch the hilights from certin sites that show what is relivant or massive erilivant lol

101 great to hear from ya buddy, lets keep it real and try always to look at why not so much as what we are fed. Sometime I go into work and the things I hear ar nuts as the Dorner was killed by 2 ladies in a truck oh wait thats not what happened. Got your 6

Sky egale and his views on ufo`s look back at his goverment coverups there.  He quotes fox news far to much for my liking as far as what can be passed on as news.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 14 February 2013 - 06:43 AM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#822    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,114 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:50 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 14 February 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

News media that lobbys so much to promote an agenda left or right is no longer trust worthy. It`s like watching the news as a fortune teller ot just a teller. The media is not about news. For example Canada has banned basic cable from airing fox news because it lies and has been proven. Hence it`s not legal unless you subscribe for it on cable.  I have fox but only watch the hilights from certin sites that show what is relivant or massive erilivant lol

101 great to hear from ya buddy, lets keep it real and try always to look at why not so much as what we are fed. Sometime I go into work and the things I hear ar nuts as the Dorner was killed by 2 ladies in a truck oh wait thats not what happened. Got your 6

To be honest the media has not had much of a say downunder on the subject. The main media exposure I have been exposed to was at the time. Whilst I read news sites regularly, I tend to read local sources as it pertain to my everyday.

One thing I do not plan on referring to the media, in that we surely are in agreeance, they tend to get things wrong more often than not, that is the nature of it. Largely over the years I have sought documentaries, explanations, reports and I have done quite some lurking in these thread since Sky and Boon came over here, and my own personal angles that have interested me, but mate, it's a deal, I will do my level best to keep the media put, and only verified information in.

Always good to hear from you mate, mostly why I took your post as an opportunity to break the ice so to speak. I had a feeling you would be good with it mate and I know to expect a good clean discussion with you, my only hope is that such is uniform in this part of the forum. But I see you as a shining example of a decent discussion. Heck, I owe you one too mate, you opened my eyes to a side of Dawkins that I did not see, and one day, I hope I can buy you a beer for that. It's the beauty of UM. Some great people here and we all seem to be able to share.

Cheers.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#823    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:00 AM

View Postredhen, on 14 February 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:


Just to clear up for those who don’t click the link - it’s a spoof/comedy.


View Postskyeagle409, on 14 February 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

Reality time.

Excellent, your ‘reality’ is to link the same Fox News article and inaccurate headline four times.  Why don’t you quote the part of the 2004 videotape where “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11”?  But you wont... because he doesn’t.

So we have one guy posting spoofs and another linking fallacious Fox News headlines, - OCTs really know their stuff.


Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#824    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:08 AM

101 my friend you give me to much credit. I don`t post nearly as much as I us to. I don`t think my views have changed to much but as anybody views are changable.  Imo the facts and the hear say so to speak tell a tail that has both if not three sides involved and OBL  as a scape goat. I will not jump on a tail coat but for such a thing as 9-11 to happen with 4 plains and a 75% accuraccy from 19 morons seems improbable. i am willing to look at any aspect of that but will not buy into a government report that used trillions on a war and a few million on an investigation as to how and why.  Im not a ct guy but I know what a dead rat smells like.  I`m not like Boon as he often went with the popular midia as sky does.  

I want an open investigation and that was never allowed. The lies as to to the wars are now transparent ad a joke I feel the people need an honest investigation. That will never happen though. So I guess we believe the govenment 100% as well as politicians or we just keep getting called Ct`folk when we want better answers

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#825    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,165 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:10 AM

View PostQ24, on 14 February 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

Just to clear up for those who don’t click the link - it’s a spoof/comedy.



shhhhhh lol


It`s the Onion, I could see how some could take it as Fox news but we should not lie or decieve right.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 14 February 2013 - 07:12 AM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users