Obviousman Posted July 1, 2009 #276 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) Fact:See the USS Liberty incident. Fact? Could I see solid, verified, indisputable fact of this? Fact: The CIA is in part responsible for the founding of Al-Qaeda, with supply of funding and weapons through Pakistan. Quite possible. This was probably during the period when the former USSR was in Afghanistan and the US was supporting all resistance / anti-Soviet groups. Fact: CIA agents reportedly met with Osama bin Laden on more than one occasion and as recently as two months prior 9/11. Really? I was unaware of this. Can you provide evidence? Fact: It has been reported in the mainstream media that two of the hijackers lived with an FBI informant and that a further five of the hijackers happened to live right outside the gates of the America’s most powerful spy agency, the NSA. But the same "mainstream media" reports things like the hijackers getting flight training, doing simulator training in similar type aircraft to that used on 9-11, wanting skills that would allow them to attack a target and being disinterested in things like landing, etc. You wouldn't be being selective about what you choose to believ and what you choose not to, would you? etc, etc, etc If you want to postulate something as being a fact, then you must provided solid evidence of it being a fact. Edited July 1, 2009 by Obviousman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted July 1, 2009 #277 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Hold it, people. This is not a generic 9/11 thread (heaven's knows there are enough of those). Stick to the Cruise Missile theory there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obviousman Posted July 1, 2009 #278 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) Yep - good point. I return to over 100 people who SAW the aircraft impact the Pentagon. At best, the "hologramme" theory is a theory; I would like documented proof of a hologramme being able to mask - in every visible dimension - the theorised cruise missile. Edited July 1, 2009 by Obviousman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbusdriver Posted July 1, 2009 #279 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I imagine that the best evidence of an airliner vs cruise missile was the large initial fireball, consuming thousands of gallons of fuel. Cruise missiles just don't carry/need that much fuel, and their warheads are high explosives, which don't create the big fireballs seen in the pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted July 1, 2009 #280 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Thank you, Q24. I had heard of most of those items and I have no doubt they are true. In a few posts back, I suggested the tower attack could have been a 'let it happen' or a 'help it happen' operation. It could also have been done with no terriorists at all. Did any security cameras pick them up as they boarded the planes? These sceptics keep bringing it up about a hologram could have been used at the Pentagon strike. I have stated several times that I never heard of such a thing until post #24, this thread. I did say I thought it would solve the riddle of how the witnesses could see a plane and yet a missile hit the building. I would not be suprised at anything the military could have in their arsenal. I don't know what the yield of a 'baby nuke' is , but they certainly have them and something more than burning jet fuel and office furniture melted all that steel in the towers. The fireball could have been an explosive set up outside the Pentagon. IMHO, KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted July 1, 2009 #281 Share Posted July 1, 2009 747400, I could care less if you or anybody else disagrees with my theories. However, I do resent the snide remarks and attack on me personally. I look at a forum as if it were a group of people sitting at a table discussing a subject. I don't expect everybody to agree with me, that wouldn't be much of a forum but I think all of us should stay within the 'conduct becoming a gentleman' parameter and of course, the rules of the forum. IMHO, KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted July 2, 2009 #282 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Thank you, Q24. I had heard of most of those items and I have no doubt they are true. Huh??? You have no doubts? You are kidding, right? I mean , no one believes his distorted insinuations. No one! Not one person in their right mind. So, you better reconsider. Go read some books on the subject of terrorism, and the events connected to September 11, 2001. Please. Before you get a reputation for being as dull as Q24. Or, even worse. He is a slickster and a fraudster. One who repackages history and pawns that off to the unsuspecting. He does not like al Qaeda. He is anti-Sunni. He is anti-Mossad. He is anti-American. Where does that put him? Answer: No where you want to be, and with friends you don't want. And, don't try that gentleman line with me. You are anything, but. You show no respect for those who perished on 9-11, and blame innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted July 2, 2009 #283 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Fact: a former member of Israel’s Sayeret Matkal intelligence unit, Daniel Lewin was onboard Flight 11. What have you against this man? What would you say to his wife and children? What have you accomplished besides dreaming of his talents, and contributions? Danny Lewin Tribute from Akamai Q24, you have lost all propriety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted July 2, 2009 #284 Share Posted July 2, 2009 A Set of Engineering Estimates on the Pentagon Did a Missile Hit the Pentagon? Since no missiles, and only airplanes, were crashed on 9-11, affirmative responses to the topic are mired in make-believe, from the beginning. The events at the Pentagon are the only ones that some overly thoughtless people still don't seem to understand. Read, learn, and then try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obviousman Posted July 2, 2009 #285 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I'm still waiting to see proof of hologrammes being able to project the image of an airliner across a speed cruise missile. Proof, remember - not supposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted July 2, 2009 #286 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Really? I was unaware of this. Can you provide evidence? the presence of Bush Sr. along with Shafiq bin Laden, brother of Osama bin Laden at the Carlyle Group breakfast meeting......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted July 2, 2009 #287 Share Posted July 2, 2009 In response to questions by Obviousman: - Fact? Could I see solid, verified, indisputable fact of this? Regarding the USS Liberty incident, most people including the survivors, high level government officials and even those who worked on the official investigation believe that the Israeli’s knew exactly what they were doing. As I said before you selectively quoted me, if the USS Liberty incident is not sufficient for you then please see the Lavon Affair which was an undisputed covert operation by Israel against their ‘allies’. Really? I was unaware of this. Can you provide evidence? Research Ali Mohammed who worked for US special forces and the CIA during the time he was meeting with Al Qaeda. FBI special agent Jack Cloonan has described Ali Mohammed as “bin Laden's first trainer”. The CIA meeting with bin Laden two months prior 9/11 I mentioned is sourced from French intelligence, reported in Le Figaro and repeated in other mainstream media. All of this information is available to verify and can be found at the top of most search engines’ lists. More on topic: - I imagine that the best evidence of an airliner vs cruise missile was the large initial fireball, consuming thousands of gallons of fuel. Cruise missiles just don't carry/need that much fuel, and their warheads are high explosives, which don't create the big fireballs seen in the pictures. That’s an excellent observation that is so obvious it could be overlooked. Sometimes the simplest ideas are definitely best. The large fireball witnessed matched those at the WTC and could not be expected from a missile strike; rather a large fuel tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obviousman Posted July 2, 2009 #288 Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) In response to questions by Obviousman: - Regarding the USS Liberty incident, most people including the survivors, high level government officials and even those who worked on the official investigation believe that the Israeli’s knew exactly what they were doing. As I said before you selectively quoted me, if the USS Liberty incident is not sufficient for you then please see the Lavon Affair which was an undisputed covert operation by Israel against their ‘allies’. No, I asked if you can provide proof. You have failed to do so. Research Ali Mohammed who worked for US special forces and the CIA during the time he was meeting with Al Qaeda. FBI special agent Jack Cloonan has described Ali Mohammed as “bin Laden's first trainer”. The CIA meeting with bin Laden two months prior 9/11 I mentioned is sourced from French intelligence, reported in Le Figaro and repeated in other mainstream media. No, I asked if you can provide proof. You have failed to do so. At best you are saying that someone else (the paper) said it. That's hearsay. If you can provide PROOF, please do so. I'd like to see it. Edited July 2, 2009 by Obviousman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted July 2, 2009 #289 Share Posted July 2, 2009 No, I asked if you can provide proof. You have failed to do so. the fbi dont even consider 911 as one of tim osman's bil laden's crimes........ LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted July 2, 2009 #290 Share Posted July 2, 2009 the 'pakistani' involvement...... general mahmoud ahmad..... the 'financier' of al qaeda.......... what do u say about these............. www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obviousman Posted July 2, 2009 #291 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Still waiting for proof. YouTube is not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted July 2, 2009 #292 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Still waiting for proof. YouTube is not proof. ok, these............. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/ju...ence_12-11.html GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11? SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States. Ifill GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about? SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today. http://www.oilempire.us/graham.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0512-04.htm http://911review.org/brad.com/archives/Goss_9-11.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted July 2, 2009 #293 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I believe I hear that parrot again. Hopping up and down on his perch, squawking, "Prove it, prove it to every word". Thank you, Your Honor. KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted July 2, 2009 #294 Share Posted July 2, 2009 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...ticle881598.ece http://tvnewslies.org/html/bin_laden_ties.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted July 2, 2009 #295 Share Posted July 2, 2009 No, I asked if you can provide proof. You have failed to do so. The original fact I gave was that Israeli intelligence has a history of performing covert/false flag operations. Most people who thoroughly research the USS Liberty incident would say it is a good example but I apologise if you don’t have time to do this. If this is not sufficient for you then please see the Lavon Affair for up front proof that the base fact is correct regardless. No, I asked if you can provide proof. You have failed to do so. At best you are saying that someone else (the paper) said it. That's hearsay. Again please reread the original fact I gave: “CIA agents reportedly met with Osama bin Laden”. Whether one personally goes on to believe or not that CIA agents met with bin Laden in a Dubai hospital is not at all the point. As there are indeed newspaper articles available online reporting such a meeting, this is proof that the base fact is correct. Please don’t get confused between the facts and your own construal of them. Of course the evidence is open to interpretation where you can disbelieve, write off as irrelevant or be as pedantic as you like, but the core facts stand. ok, these............. The story about Omar Sheikh wiring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta at the behest of General Mahmud Ahmad was all over the media. Here is a further article on Omar Sheikh written by a British politician for the Guardian newspaper. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11 I believe I hear that parrot again. Hopping up and down on his perch, squawking, "Prove it, prove it to every word". It wouldn’t be so bad if the parrot would lift his **** off the perch and do some research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted July 2, 2009 #296 Share Posted July 2, 2009 The only trouble with the Bush/bin Laden connection, and all the other stuff concerning the Bushes, is that, according to one version of the theory, Bush actually didn't have much to do with it and it was organised by others (Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) largely behind Bush's back - as, if you think about it, it would have to have been, since all this couldn't possibly have been organised and planned in the nine months since Bush came to office, so much of it muist have been planned while Clinton was in office. So was it all engineered by the Bushes, or was he just the front man? Opinions seem to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted July 2, 2009 #297 Share Posted July 2, 2009 The only trouble with the Bush/bin Laden connection, and all the other stuff concerning the Bushes, is that, according to one version of the theory, Bush actually didn't have much to do with it and it was organised by others (Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) largely behind Bush's back - as, if you think about it, it would have to have been, since all this couldn't possibly have been organised and planned in the nine months since Bush came to office, so much of it muist have been planned while Clinton was in office. So was it all engineered by the Bushes, or was he just the front man? Opinions seem to differ. I don’t think anyone infers that the entire operation was carried out “behind Bush’s back” so there’s that problem gone; opinions don’t seem to differ in so far as that Bush was ‘in the know’ about what was to occur. The theory I described here suggests that Bush took a back seat to the planning and implementation of the operation but that he would be aware and understand the benefits as much as anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted July 2, 2009 #298 Share Posted July 2, 2009 w...... w...... w........ w........... w............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted July 2, 2009 #299 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Sorry if I double-post. Having computer trouble. I don't think George W. Bush could possibily have planned and carried out the 9-11 operation. It strained his mental capacity to act as a 'puppet President', controlled by his father. I do believe he knew the operation was supposed to go down on 9-11. That is not a big thing, however, seems like half the world knew that. Look at the killing that was made on the stock market by people having that 'inside information'. That operation was probably being planned at least 10-15 years ago. After all, that was the 'crime of the millennium'. Only the best evil geniuses of our time could have pulled it off. Good posts, mcrom901 and Q24. IMHO, KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted July 2, 2009 #300 Share Posted July 2, 2009 here is one of my favourites............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now