View Full Version : False Flag Alert -- April 7-11
BlueQuarter
04-09-2008, 08:01 PM
FALSE FLAG ALERT -- APRIL 7-11
author: Captain Eric H. May
Two military officers of high conscience and courage, Marine Major William B. Fox and Army Captain Eric H. May, have posted a critical worldwide alert on false flag prospects for this week, April 7-11. As they point out, there are too many indicators of a possible war with Iran not to be concerned.
-- All officials and media: please forward, print and broadcast. --
Attention: Federal Bureau of Investigation
This alert is issued in accordance with a mission of conscience by two former military officers: Major William B. Fox, USMCR, Publisher, America First Books; and Captain Eric H. May, former Army intelligence officer, Military Correspondent, The Lone Star Iconoclast. We consider our actions to be consistent with the oath we took to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This week, April 7-11, there is a heightened possibility of a foreign or domestic false flag attack, used to trigger a war with Iran. We believe that the most likely false flag events would be either an attack on a US ship abroad (e.g., the Israeli 1967 false flag attack on the USS Liberty), or a false flag terror attack on the US domestic target. The most likely patsies would be Iranian military forces or Hezbollah.
Captain May's March 31 article in the Lone Star Iconoclast Spring Fling in Iran? -- Updating World War III describes several significant intelligence indicators for commencement of war with Iran:
1. Israel will conduct the largest domestic defense exercise in its history this week.
2. Admiral William "Fox" Fallon, who vigorously opposed an attack on Iran, was sacked as CENTCOM commander on March 11.
3. Senator John McCain has recently made repeated statements that Iran is connected with Al Qaeda.
4. General David Petraeus has recently made the claim that Iran is responsible for destabilizing Iraq, particularly in the matter of recent attacks on the US Green Zone in Baghdad.
Since that article's publication, top Bush administration members have held meetings with key foreign leaders, which may have been used to reach an accord prior to an attack on Iran:
1. George Bush met with Russian President Vladimir Putin this weekend.
2. Dick Cheney recently met top leaders in Saudi Arabia.
3. Robert Gates visited the Sultanate of Oman.
Numerous mainstream news articles from mainstream sources support possibility of war with Iran in the near future. All articles listed below were written in April:
Exclusive: Iran, Syria, Lebanon on military alert
Israel: Full-scale War-Drill on April 6-10, 2008
British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes
Ritter says White House preparing for war in Iran
Alarmed' As US Readies April Nuclear Attack On Iran
Israel to Redistribute Gas Masks Amid Fears of War with Iran
Another American War Crime in the Making
Israel conducts War Games directed against Iran and Syria
The author archive page that Major Fox created for Captain May's previous work explains in great detail why the false flag attack threat is very real. W. Leon Smith, publisher of The Lone Star Iconoclast, has endorsed Captain May's select methodology in his March 3 editorial "Time to Investigate Houston is Now" and his March 26 editorial "Lone Star Lone Ranger." Mr. Smith has called for a Congressional investigation based upon Captain May's accuracy in issuing alerts that were borne out by later events.
We believe that an informed public is our best defense against the possibilities we have raised in this alert. We considered the absence of substantial mainstream media attention to the war indicators we have mentioned above in itself to be an indicator that a lapdog press corps is enabling the possibility of war. Serious discussion will remove an extremely serious threat, and it is our name to inform the American people so that they can initiate that discussion.
Respectively submitted,
Major William B. Fox
Captain Eric H. May
Contact Information:
Major Fox:
360-875-0197
willfox@comcast.net
PO Box 8, South Bend, WA 98586)
Captain May:
captainmay@prodigy.net
PartyTaco
04-09-2008, 08:11 PM
Why would they post their real contact information?
So when this doesn't happen, can I punch you in the face? Seriously, people post these rumors and when they don't come true they're quietly forgotten about until the next rumor comes up. Post enough of these and eventually you might score a hit with a terrorist attack or war starting between the posted dates, at which point you can say "see! I told you so!!! I am so smart!". I, therefore shall make the following prediction: The United States will be attacked by terrorists sometime between April 9th, 2008 and October 22nd, 2067. I further predict that America will go to war with another nation sometime between April 9th, 2008 and December 13th, 2082.
You can all high five me when it comes true.
PartyTaco
04-09-2008, 08:18 PM
So when this doesn't happen, can I punch you in the face? Seriously, people post these rumors and when they don't come true they're quietly forgotten about until the next rumor comes up. Post enough of these and eventually you might score a hit with a terrorist attack or war starting between the posted dates, at which point you can say "see! I told you so!!! I am so smart!". I, therefore shall make the following prediction: The United States will be attacked by terrorists sometime between April 9th, 2008 and October 22nd, 2067. I further predict that America will go to war with another nation sometime between April 9th, 2008 and December 13th, 2082.
You can all high five me when it comes true.
Pshh i aint no faggit!
Spike Lee
04-09-2008, 08:18 PM
What the fuck is this? An email forward?
At least we're halfway through the drills. Here are are two websites where you can keep up on military drills and excercises.
http://www.total411.info/
http://www.team8plus.org/news.php
Soak A Toa
04-09-2008, 08:39 PM
I wouldn't know if this is related but the local military base in my town has been conducting many drills lately, explosions and whatnot. My dogs won't shut up because they keep thinking it's people coming through and slamming the basement door.
EDIT: And I don't think there's any rock-wall blasting going on nearby... I can't be sure.
metalhead666
04-09-2008, 08:50 PM
You can all high five me when it comes true.
i'll high five you when you get drafted into world war 3.
American Infidel
04-09-2008, 10:20 PM
The Department of Homeland Security is pursuing the introduction of a device known as the Security Bracelet, a wearable tag that would allow authorities to inflict pain compliance on suspects from a distance, while also recommending law enforcement applications and potential use in "crowd control situations".
The Department of Homeland Security is pursuing the introduction of a device known as the Security Bracelet, a wearable tag that would allow authorities to inflict pain compliance on suspects from a distance, while also recommending law enforcement applications and potential use in "crowd control situations".
Introduced ostensibly to combat airline terrorism, a creepy promo video courtesy of the patent holders Lamperd FTS exploits shocking 9/11 imagery to push the torture device as a solution to countering potential hijackers by inflicting "Electro-Muscular Disruption" and presumably giving the rest of the passengers a debilitating shock at the same time.
"Upon activation of the electric shock device, through receipt of an activating signal from the selectively operable remote control means, the passenger wearing that particular bracelet receives the disabling electrical shock from the electric shock device. Accordingly, the passenger becomes incapacitated for a few seconds or perhaps a few minutes, during which time the passenger can be fully subdued and handcuffed, if necessary. Depending on the type of transmission medium used to send the activating signal, other passengers may also become temporarily incapacitated, which is undesirable and unfortunate, but may be unavoidable," reads the patent for the device.
The claim that such a shock would "not cause permanent injury" is an insult to the hundreds of Taser victims who have lost their lives to so-called "non-lethal weapons" - devices whose abuse by authorities has led groups like Amnesty International to condemn them as an affront to basic human rights.
Why the terrorists wouldn’t just remove the bracelet as soon as they boarded the plane isn’t explained, but the perceived fallibility of the device isn’t the issue - the heart of the matter is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has publicly expressed an interest and is seeking funding to utilize the device against the "criminal element".
Letters exchanged between the company and DHS official Paul S. Ruwaldt show Homeland Security’s intention to utilize the device for border control and, "indeed for anywhere else for which the temporarily restraint of large numbers of individuals in open area environments by a small number of agents or Law Enforcement Officers".
The letters confirm that funding is being sought for the widespread deployment of the device and that several state and local authorities have expressed an interest, as well as the DOD, the CDC, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture Forestry service as well as unnamed law enforcement agencies.
In addition, according to the biography of Barry Lamperd, the owner of the company behind the device, carried on his own website, "His current focus is on products related to the use of less lethal weapons in crowd control situations".
Since revelations about warrantless secret surveillance of all U.S. citizens as well as millions of innocent Americans being included on the terror watch list have come to light, the new legal precedent of guilty until proven innocent has all but been established in the "land of the free".
So why not force protesters who insist on expressing what they claim is "freedom of speech" to wear the Security Bracelet? If they step outside of their free speech zone - zap them! How about making everyone who attends a Presidential inauguration or speech wear the bracelet in the interests of national security?
Since "crowd control situations" can easily be interchanged with "unauthorized demonstrations," why not force dissenters and undesirables to wear the bracelet so as to prevent civil unrest in times of national emergency?
Why not go the whole hog and just tag babies from birth in order to combat violent crime and robbery? If a crime is in progress, the police could just activate the shock from a safe distance and save lives.
The cost of enforcing any of these measures would of course be the complete and unmitigated death of any notion of liberty and freedom, but such concepts don’t seem to concern advocates of the device.
http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=17074
Dayve
04-09-2008, 10:52 PM
Hmm... i'm a registered agoraphobic and suffer from depression, which both count as mental illnesses. Can i avoid the draft with these when America starts WW3?
Spike Lee
04-09-2008, 11:05 PM
I'm going to let you add more info to what you said in order to not label you anything.
Hmm... i'm a registered agoraphobic and suffer from depression, which both count as mental illnesses. Can i avoid the draft with these when America starts WW3?i believe the current policy is: dont ask, dont tell.
Dayve
04-09-2008, 11:32 PM
i believe the current policy is: dont ask, dont tell.
Well, here's the way i see it...
A man starts a war, fair enough. He gets the army of his nation to fight his battle because he's too much of a coward to do it himself, fair enough. Young men are willing to die for him so they go and fight his battle... fair enough.
So um... where do i come in?
Spike Lee
04-09-2008, 11:45 PM
Do you know what Don't Ask, Don't Tell is?
Dayve
04-10-2008, 12:09 AM
Do you know what Don't Ask, Don't Tell is?
Exactly what it says on the tin?
But what if i tell?
kevinsmith
04-10-2008, 12:49 AM
I was wondering when the next "We're going to war with Iran" thread was going to start since the last one was apparently erroneous.
Devastation
04-10-2008, 12:57 AM
Well, ks, why not? Even conspiracy theorists know that the first step to exterminating the Middle East and bringing peace to the world is to first declare war on Middle Eastern nations.
Dayve
04-10-2008, 10:03 AM
Well, ks, why not? Even conspiracy theorists know that the first step to exterminating the Middle East and bringing peace to the world is to first declare war on Middle Eastern nations.
There will never be peace in the world as long as humans exist, no matter what religion they are.
Devastation
04-10-2008, 11:00 AM
There will never be peace in the world as long as humans exist, no matter what religion they are.
Well, firstly, I was obviously joking, but I would like to say this:
Religion is not the cause of all violence on this planet.
evilmittens
04-10-2008, 11:03 AM
We were issued Iranian identification guides to memorize 2 years ago. I guess its war then *rolls eyes*
The fucking nutters are out today.
Danimal87
04-10-2008, 12:28 PM
Well, here's the way i see it...
A man starts a war, fair enough. He gets the army of his nation to fight his battle because he's too much of a coward to do it himself, fair enough. Young men are willing to die for him so they go and fight his battle... fair enough.
So um... where do i come in?
For one Dayve, if you really want to ask this question, then start a new thread and don't try and hijack this one by focusing on yourself. No one gives a shit where you come in.
Plus, I find it a little strange that an "agoraphobic" person, or someone who according to Wikipedia is afraid of public places, would call anyone a coward.
And finally, your accusation is based on the assumption that Bush should be fighting in Iraq, which is pretty laughable. The heads of state have no obligation to do such a thing. Thats what armies are for.
I swear Dayve, you make this forum a lot more interesting. I'm always finding out something new about you that makes you seem even more pathetic than before. This info that you shared with us, plus your WoW addiction, your pics here on the forum of yourself, yet you still want to be a police officer? I can understand why you fill every one of your posts with as much hate as possible. It must make you feel more important than you ever will be.
If this doesn't happen tomorrow, you had better feel pretty damn stupid.
Dayve
04-10-2008, 05:38 PM
Plus, I find it a little strange that an "agoraphobic" person, or someone who according to Wikipedia is afraid of public places, would call anyone a coward.
It's the opposite of chlostrophobia. It's not really a fear, it's hard to explain. Besides, i'm not agoraphobic. I was for 3 years but thankfully it just disappeared. However, i'm registered as agoraphobic because i never declared otherwise once i got over it.
And finally, your accusation is based on the assumption that Bush should be fighting in Iraq, which is pretty laughable. The heads of state have no obligation to do such a thing. Thats what armies are for.
Right. They start a war, gain huge amounts of profits from the arms companies which they just coincidentally happen to have millions of dollars invested in shares in, and young men die for it. :)
yet you still want to be a police officer?
I'm undecided on that to be honest.
I can understand why you fill every one of your posts with as much hate as possible. It must make you feel more important than you ever will be.
Not all my posts are filled with hate, just most of them. And i don't want importance. I want a nice quiet life where the hardest decisions i have to make are "Shall i have a bath now, or before i go to bed?".
If this doesn't happen tomorrow, you had better feel pretty damn stupid.lol yea, it's gettin down to the wire for this little conspiracy
i do sometimes fear that we'll invade iran. but oh well what are you gonna do if it happens it happens. at the end of the day they do what they want regaurdless.
Do you know what Don't Ask, Don't Tell is?
Exactly what it says on the tin?
But what if i tell?lol..... what the hell are you talking about?
evilmittens
04-11-2008, 04:24 PM
Clock's ticking, dude...
And I bet it will keep on ticking like a Timex with no cares in the world. Threads like this are good for some humor in the day.
Canuk
04-11-2008, 09:31 PM
Today is April 11th and nothing happened. All this did was prove how stupid conspiracy theorists are.
Today is April 11th and nothing happened. All this did was prove how stupid conspiracy theorists are.
To be fair, he's still got 3 hours on eastern time.
Canuk
04-11-2008, 09:36 PM
To be fair, he's still got 3 hours on eastern time.
Well I won't hold my breath in anticipation.
Well I won't hold my breath in anticipation.
Maybe we can get him to hold his breath for 3 hours (closer to 2 now, but still).
Master. kirby
04-11-2008, 10:39 PM
Oh shit something just happended, quick turn on the news everyone!!!!!
I just got a boner.
but obviously nothing happend because they made the plans public and the government was afraid that they couldn't carry out their plan because then everyone would know.
Oh shit something just happended, quick turn on the news everyone!!!!!
I just got a boner.
but obviously nothing happend because they made the plans public and the government was afraid that they couldn't carry out their plan because then everyone would know.
Yeah....because people knowing it would be a conspiracy really stopped them from doing 9/11...:rolleyes:
Today is April 11th and nothing happened. All this did was prove how stupid conspiracy theorists are.
When you have drills of the exact "terrorist attacks" that just happened to occur, running on 7/7 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/london_exercise_video.html) and 9/11 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html), you kind of get worried when a nation starts running these terror practices, especially when the nation is hell bent on getting the US to attack Iran on their behalf.
From now on, nations that wish to practice terror will have the world watching them and telling others as they do it.
When you have drills of the exact "terrorist attacks" that just happened to occur, running on 7/7 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/london_exercise_video.html) and 9/11 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html), you kind of get worried when a nation starts running these terror practices, especially when the nation is hell bent on getting the US to attack Iran on their behalf.
From now on, nations that wish to practice terror will have the world watching them and telling others as they do it.
We had drills for terrorists hijacking planes in boston, crashing them into the towers, pentagon, and a field in pennsylvania?
Hot damn, I had no idea...
20 minutes.
Dayve
04-12-2008, 01:18 AM
It's been April 12th for 5 hours and 27 minutes for me... Nothing on the news yet.
customerservice
04-12-2008, 01:36 AM
Makes you wonder why two relatively low ranking officers would know of this epic plot but nobody else in the military or the government does. hmm, interesting.
shade
04-12-2008, 01:39 AM
Well, nothing happened. :)
I bet the people riding the subway on 7/7 wished they had been alerted that a terror practice exercise of bombs in the subway would be going on that day.
Dayve
04-12-2008, 01:51 AM
I bet the people riding the subway on 7/7 wished they had been alerted that a terror practice exercise of bombs in the subway would be going on that day.
I'm sure they do... But then again, our government needed people to die to keep up a little support for the Iraq war which nobody wanted to enter in the first place.
Spike Lee
04-12-2008, 02:49 AM
I'm sure they do... But then again, our government needed people to die to keep up a little support for the Iraq war which nobody wanted to enter in the first place.
Everyone ignore this guy, he obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
Dayve
04-12-2008, 02:57 AM
Everyone ignore this guy, he obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
It's true man... Terrorists play into the hands of our government so much, they're kicking themselves in the nuts everytime they do it. Bush had Iraq and Afghanistan invasion plans on the table as soon as he cheated his way into office, just needed an excuse... then bam, 9/11 happened, it was like all his Christmases came at once.
Then, people start losing interest in the war... 7/7 happens, support rises a little, although not quite as much as 9/11.
They really play into the hands of our governments with these attacks. It's what they want... more excuses to invade more countries.
Mojoe77
04-12-2008, 04:15 AM
It's true man... Terrorists play into the hands of our government so much, they're kicking themselves in the nuts everytime they do it. Bush had Iraq and Afghanistan invasion plans on the table as soon as he cheated his way into office, just needed an excuse... then bam, 9/11 happened, it was like all his Christmases came at once.
Then, people start losing interest in the war... 7/7 happens, support rises a little, although not quite as much as 9/11.
They really play into the hands of our governments with these attacks. It's what they want... more excuses to invade more countries.
Hi Dayve. Tell me, where are your sources? OH WAIT, YOU HAVE NONE!
:lmao:
i think i get what he's saying though... at first i thought he was saying that 9/11 was an inside job but now i just think he's saying that the government uses these terrorist attacks to their advantage. it gives them a good excuse to go to war. the american public gets on the defensive when our lives are threatened and then we're not so quick to jump on the anti-war bandwagon. if that's the point he was making i'd say he's probably right in making that assumption.
Cur67
04-13-2008, 11:19 AM
Well lets just go surfing.
Off the balmy shores of the Bay of Tonkin.
and go sailing aboard the U.S.S. Liberty.
Followed by a gambling cruise on the Lusitania.
I think anyone that posts this kind of thread and has nothing happen when they say something will should be banned.
But that's just me.
Spike Lee
04-13-2008, 03:05 PM
I think anyone that posts this shit without asking a question should get banned for the amount of days that the person put us on alert.
This was a rather baseless claim to be made.
OMFG FORUM RAGE
04-13-2008, 06:45 PM
I think anyone that posts this shit without asking a question should get banned for the amount of days that the person put us on alert.
This was a rather baseless claim to be made.
agreed my friend conspiracy theorists are full of bullshit
Alex Jones for example
agreed my friend conspiracy theorists are full of bullshit
Author and webmaster Ryan Dawson, (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Welcome-To-The-USSA/Ryan-Dawson/e/9780595393848)who runs Anti-Neocons.com predicted (actually just casually commented) on his MySpace news group that there would be a terrorist attack in London the day before it happened. MySpace then immediately removed his page the day of the bombing citing violation of TOS.
Alex Jones predicted on July 25, 2001 (http://www.archive.org/details/July252001WarningOfBio-weaponAttack) that the government (or criminal elements in the government) would release a bio-weapon soon and called for listeners to get the word out. He said any terror attack would come from within the government and would be blamed on Osamy bin Forgotten.
Not only was there the anthrax attacks that came from Ft. Detrick, MD, but of course the September 11, 2001 attacks. Both, by the way were blamed on Osamy.
Bill Cooper, who was assasinated by the Feds in the front yard of his home, predicted in June of 2001 on his radio show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4EyBstOsA) that there would be a major attack terrorist inside the US and that the US would blame Osamy.
I'd say these three conspiracy theorists were pretty spot-on.
Author and webmaster Ryan Dawson, (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Welcome-To-The-USSA/Ryan-Dawson/e/9780595393848)who runs Anti-Neocons.com predicted (actually just casually commented) on his MySpace news group that there would be a terrorist attack in London the day before it happened. MySpace then immediately removed his page the day of the bombing citing violation of TOS.
Alex Jones predicted on July 25, 2001 (http://www.archive.org/details/July252001WarningOfBio-weaponAttack) that the government (or criminal elements in the government) would release a bio-weapon soon and called for listeners to get the word out. He said any terror attack would come from within the government and would be blamed on Osamy bin Forgotten.
Not only was there the anthrax attacks that came from Ft. Detrick, MD, but of course the September 11, 2001 attacks. Both, by the way were blamed on Osamy.
Bill Cooper, who was assasinated by the Feds in the front yard of his home, predicted in June of 2001 on his radio show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4EyBstOsA) that there would be a major attack terrorist inside the US and that the US would blame Osamy.
I'd say these three conspiracy theorists were pretty spot-on.
Spot on except for their claims that the attacks were initiated by the US and only blamed on someone else.
Can't prove that last little bit, can you? Nope, you can't. Theorists never can because you simply cannot prove the untrue.
Spot on except for their claims that the attacks were initiated by the US and only blamed on someone else.
Can't prove that last little bit, can you? Nope, you can't. Theorists never can because you simply cannot prove the untrue.
We can prove that the conspiracies didn't happen the way the media told us they happened.
There were some conspiracies, the conspiracies were blamed on Osamy (with no proof and the FBI admits it) and some conspiracy theorists predicted the conspiracies would take place.
The jury is still out on 9/11 with about half of Americans, but the anthrax case is all but solved. The FBI has a prime suspect in Dr. Phillip Zach, but refuse to bring up charges.
We can prove that the conspiracies didn't happen the way the media told us they happened.
There were some conspiracies, the conspiracies were blamed on Osamy (with no proof and the FBI admits it) and some conspiracy theorists predicted the conspiracies would take place.
The jury is still out on 9/11 with about half of Americans, but the anthrax case is all but solved. The FBI has a prime suspect in Dr. Phillip Zach, but refuse to bring up charges.
Prove all of it then.
And I think "half of all Americans" is a big overstatement for your side of the argument.
Prove all of it then.
Are you serious? This is conspiracy theory 101 stuff.
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm) source FBI website
Tell me where on the FBI's website where it says Osamy is wanted for 9/11.
FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html)
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Remember they told us that someone working with Al Qaeda or Saddam (they're all the same by the way) sent the anthrax letters? Well they never did make that connection and now they got a guy Philip Zack, a Zionist who has a hatred of Arabs, but they won't bring him up on charges.
source BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2196008.stm)
CNN ran a propaganda with piece with a former Clinton Advisor who tried to make the case for blaming Saddam for the anthrax, admitting there was no proof! As you know, the attempts to tie Saddam or Osamy with the anthrax was repeated over and over.
Laurie Mylroie is the author of "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War," which outlines her case that Iraq had a central role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. She served as an adviser on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign.
MYLROIE: There is no proof that Saddam is involved in the anthrax scares, but proof is different from evidence. Proof, according to the dictionary, is conclusive demonstration. Evidence is something that indicates, like your smile is evident of your affection for me. There is evidence that Iraq is behind the anthrax scares. First, it takes a highly sophisticated agency to produce anthrax in the lethal form that was in the letter sent to Senator Daschle. Not many parties can do that. Second, there is an additive in that anthrax, bentonite, which is used to cause the anthrax to not stick together, and float in the air. Iraq is the only party known to have produced anthrax with bentonite.
Professor Don Foster - who helped convict Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and unveiled Joe Klein as the author of the novel Primary Colors - says the evidence points to someone with high-ranking military and intelligence connections.
Speaking about the investigation for the first time, Prof Foster told the BBC he had identified two suspects who had both worked for the CIA, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and other classified military operations.
And I think "half of all Americans" is a big overstatement for your side of the argument.
Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469) source Angus Reid
Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.
All that shit is pretty flimsy at best. Pure speculation when you jump from A to B.
And I want a Reuters poll for that figure on half of Americans thinking 9/11 was an inside job. Any good statitician will tell you that poll result you just linked us all too is unreliable.
Besides, even in its own words: "53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying." Lying is very different from orchestrated.
All that shit is pretty flimsy at best. Pure speculation when you jump from A to B.
And I want a Reuters poll for that figure on half of Americans thinking 9/11 was an inside job. Any good statitician will tell you that poll result you just linked us all too is unreliable.
Besides, even in its own words: "53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying." Lying is very different from orchestrated.
What a load of horse shit.
I said it didn't happen the way the media said it happened and proved it with mainstream sources and you can't even deny any of it.
What a load of horse shit.
I said it didn't happen the way the media said it happened and proved it with mainstream sources and you can't even deny any of it.
People having the opinion that someone might have lied without any description of what they think the lie is does not prove anything. That poll was laughable, and you trying to construe what people in a biased poll reported they think might be possible as proof of your claims is just as laughable.
Just because some Prof has "suspects" doesn't mean any of what he says is right. Look at the multitude of professors and experts in the fields related to anything to do with 9/11 (as opposed to the ones in the theatre and film-making departments) and you'll see that almost all of them say it's an open-and-shut case and that the official report is accurate.
Just because the FBI doesn't have the evidence doesn't mean the CIA doesn't.
You've proven nothing but that circumstantial facts that don't prove anything exist.
Spike Lee
04-14-2008, 04:27 PM
Alex Jones is a dumbfuck. He simply connects the dots without matching the numbers.
Here is an excellent prediction this man has made:
"Within 2 years I'm predicting...that you're going to see a suitcase nuke in this country. You're probably going to see a release in a few years of something communicable. & I am predicting that you will see a lot of conventional bombings...in the next year or so."
--Alex Jones, Infowars (10/18/01)
Oh my gosh! He was right!
Hey Alex, Ben is not related to Mike Chertoff. And if he was, that does little to refute the 9/11 debunking he handed out to your ass.
People having the opinion that someone might have lied without any description of what they think the lie is does not prove anything. That poll was laughable, and you trying to construe what people in a biased poll reported they think might be possible as proof of your claims is just as laughable.
Just because some Prof has "suspects" doesn't mean any of what he says is right. Look at the multitude of professors and experts in the fields related to anything to do with 9/11 (as opposed to the ones in the theatre and film-making departments) and you'll see that almost all of them say it's an open-and-shut case and that the official report is accurate.
Just because the FBI doesn't have the evidence doesn't mean the CIA doesn't.
You've proven nothing but that circumstantial facts that don't prove anything exist.
Except you still cannot refute, deny or debunk anything. Show me where the media was truthful in the reporting of 9/11 or the anthrax attacks. Prove to me how Osama did 9/11 . You can't because, aside from the video that's obviously fake, there's no evidence except for the media repeating it over and over.
Spike Lee
04-14-2008, 04:39 PM
Except you still cannot refute, deny or debunk anything. Show me where the media was truthful in the reporting of 9/11 or the anthrax attacks. Prove to me how Osama did 9/11 . You can't because, aside from the video that's obviously fake, there's no evidence except for the media repeating it over and over.
This is a differnt video from the 'alleged' fake one.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html
This is a differnt video from the 'alleged' fake one.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html
Close, but still not Osamy.
Besides, the realy Osamy denied involvement in the attacks
September 16, 2001 (http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040629/infocus/topic_01/timeline_sep2001.html) source PBS
Osama bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks in a statement to Al Jazeera television, saying, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."
also
Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article410125.ece) source Times Online London
“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”
Krongard, a former investment banker (tied to put options) who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.
Spike Lee
04-14-2008, 04:53 PM
Close, but still not Osamy.
Besides, the realy Osamy denied involvement in the attacks
September 16, 2001 (http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040629/infocus/topic_01/timeline_sep2001.html) source PBS
Osama bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks in a statement to Al Jazeera television, saying, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."
also
Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article410125.ece) source Times Online London
“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”
Krongard, a former investment banker (tied to put options) who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.
What the hell? How is that not Osama in the link I posted? He denied his involvement at first and then admitted it.
Except you still cannot refute, deny or debunk anything. Show me where the media was truthful in the reporting of 9/11 or the anthrax attacks. Prove to me how Osama did 9/11 . You can't because, aside from the video that's obviously fake, there's no evidence except for the media repeating it over and over.
Calling it obviously fake is your opinion, and not widely accepted at all.
You're the one espousing the uncommon opinions as if they're proven fact, the burden of proof is on you. Bring me any proof of any foul play on 9/11 by our government, I'll debunk it using basic kinematic physics and construction knowledge. I've done it before, I can do it again.
Providing a media poll with results that have ambiguous definitions is NOT proof of anything.
One douchenozzle (the business end of the douche, mind you) that claims ONE organization out of many that investigated the events in question not having all the evidence doesn't prove a damn thing. Especially when every other expert, associated with the government and not, disagrees with that douchenozzle.
You made I claim, I asked for evidence, you can't provide anything beyond half-baked speculation. And now you're demanding that I defend my position when it's you that is making the claim? I'm not going to argue against an argument you can't even back up.
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 04:54 PM
Close, but still not Osamy.
Besides, the realy Osamy denied involvement in the attacks
September 16, 2001 (http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040629/infocus/topic_01/timeline_sep2001.html) source PBS
Osama bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks in a statement to Al Jazeera television, saying, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."
also
Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article410125.ece) source Times Online London
“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”
Krongard, a former investment banker (tied to put options) who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml
That's based on the fake bin Laden tape.
Calling it obviously fake is your opinion, and not widely accepted at all.
You're the one espousing the uncommon opinions as if they're proven fact, the burden of proof is on you. Bring me any proof of any foul play on 9/11 by our government, I'll debunk it using basic kinematic physics and construction knowledge. I've done it before, I can do it again.
Providing a media poll with results that have ambiguous definitions is NOT proof of anything.
One douchenozzle (the business end of the douche, mind you) that claims ONE organization out of many that investigated the events in question not having all the evidence doesn't prove a damn thing. Especially when every other expert, associated with the government and not, disagrees with that douchenozzle.
You made I claim, I asked for evidence, you can't provide anything beyond half-baked speculation. And now you're demanding that I defend my position when it's you that is making the claim? I'm not going to argue against an argument you can't even back up.
I've provided the evidence that the two attacks didn't happen the way they said it did. You're still not putting forth any evidence or proof that bin Laden did it. And the government hasn't put forth an evidence either.
Spike Lee
04-14-2008, 05:03 PM
And the link I posted is from a Bin Laden tape that was real and he admitted it was him.
And the link I posted is from a Bin Laden tape that was real and he admitted it was him.
Loads of discrepancies there too. Why would Osamy deny involvement and then change his mind and say he did it? It makes no sense.
The Fake 2004 Bin Laden Video Tape (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html) source What Really Happened and variety of mainstream reports
Was Bin Laden's last video faked? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21530470/) source MSNBC
We're obviously not going to see eye to eye some I'm just going to rest my case and maintain that the majority of the mainstream media lacks credibility overall and they obviously lied/covered up many aspects of both attacks, regardless if you believe they were inside jobs or not.
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 05:23 PM
NO! YOUR MEDIA SOURCE IS WRONG! MINE IS RIGHT! :lmao:
Typical CT behavior. Its no use.
Prove to me that its fake.
Prove everything.
I find this bullshit you're saying quite insulting to my intelligence.
NO! YOUR MEDIA SOURCE IS WRONG! MINE IS RIGHT! :lmao:
Typical CT behavior. Its no use.
Prove to me that its fake.
I can say the same thing about people who believe in the government's conspiracy theories. Ususally when a crime has taken place, investigators are able to prove who perpetrated the crime by following a money trail. When that was done it led back to Fortune 500/CIA insider trading and Pakistani intelligence, not to Osamy.
OMFG FORUM RAGE
04-14-2008, 05:49 PM
bullshit CT mentality
Prove everything.
I find this bullshit you're saying quite insulting to my intelligence.
So don't read it then. You certainly can't refute it, that's why you feel insulted.
OMFG FORUM RAGE
04-14-2008, 05:53 PM
no its because of your One World Goverment paranoid speculation and ambush journalism
no its because of your One World Goverment paranoid speculation and ambush journalism
Typical insults with nothing to back it up. I'll be waiting for you to refute one word I've said.
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 06:09 PM
I can say the same thing about people who believe in the government's conspiracy theories.
The difference is that my article says EXACTLY what I am contending. You have to grasp at straws and make assumptions with your articles. They never state exaactlywhat you are trying to prove.
Ususally when a crime has taken place, investigators are able to prove who perpetrated the crime by following a money trail. When that was done it led back to Fortune 500/CIA insider trading and Pakistani intelligence, not to Osamy.Prove it then. Don't just say it, prove it.
The difference is that my article says EXACTLY what I am contending. You have to grasp at straws and make assumptions with your articles. They never state exaactlywhat you are trying to prove.
I'm not sure how much clearer the FBI saying "no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11" can be.
Prove it then. Don't just say it, prove it.
It's already been proven. You've got the same Google I have...but whatever.
Israelis were 9-11 short sale stock buyers, betting on WTC terror strikes, story killed... (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315296.shtml)
Suppressed details of insider leads to CIA (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/illegaltrades.html)
Kucinich to Investigate 9/11 Insider Trading (http://winsomecowboy.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/23/1320861-kucinich-to-investigate-911-insider-trading)
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 06:26 PM
I'm not sure how much clearer the FBI saying "no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11" can be. Bin Laden did 9/11. I'm not going to provide you with proof, you have the same Google as me :rolleyes:
PsiRedEye22
04-14-2008, 06:27 PM
Your arguement dies when you mention Google. It is Godwin's Law sans Nazis.
Bin Laden did 9/11. I'm not going to provide you with proof, you have the same Google as me :rolleyes:
Ok, you seem to want to ignore the fact that Osama is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11 and that the FBI has said there is no hard evidence :rolleyes: And I've already posted the proof about no hard evidence.
Ok, you seem to want to ignore the fact that Osama is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11 and that the FBI has said there is no hard evidence :rolleyes: And I've already posted the proof about no hard evidence.
No, your article had someone claim that the FBI had no evidence, not that no evidence existed. It says nothing about the CIA or any other intel agency. Just because the FBI does not possess it does not mean it does not exist. The FBI is not the only group of investigators our government has, and it primarily deals with cases that are on US soil. We're chasing someone that is not on US land, so it's more the jurisdiction of the CIA.
There's a difference between "FBI has not evidence" and "The FBI says there is no evidence" and you would do well to learn the subtle nuances of reading comprehension before you try to hash together jerk-ass crackpot theories that make shit for sense and accuse people of heinous things that you can't prove they did just because you dislike them over some other thing they actually did do that is trivial by comparison.
texmaster
04-14-2008, 06:57 PM
No, your article had someone claim that the FBI had no evidence, not that no evidence existed. It says nothing about the CIA or any other intel agency. Just because the FBI does not possess it does not mean it does not exist. The FBI is not the only group of investigators our government has, and it primarily deals with cases that are on US soil. We're chasing someone that is not on US land, so it's more the jurisdiction of the CIA.
There's a difference between "FBI has not evidence" and "The FBI says there is no evidence" and you would do well to learn the subtle nuances of reading comprehension before you try to hash together jerk-ass crackpot theories that make shit for sense and accuse people of heinous things that you can't prove they did just because you dislike them over some other thing they actually did do that is trivial by comparison.
Well said.
No, your article had someone claim that the FBI had no evidence, not that no evidence existed. It says nothing about the CIA or any other intel agency. Just because the FBI does not possess it does not mean it does not exist. The FBI is not the only group of investigators our government has, and it primarily deals with cases that are on US soil. We're chasing someone that is not on US land, so it's more the jurisdiction of the CIA.
There's a difference between "FBI has not evidence" and "The FBI says there is no evidence" and you would do well to learn the subtle nuances of reading comprehension before you try to hash together jerk-ass crackpot theories that make shit for sense and accuse people of heinous things that you can't prove they did just because you dislike them over some other thing they actually did do that is trivial by comparison.
If the evidence does exist, it was never presented by anyone in the governmnent and you still ignored the fact that on the FBI's website that he is not wanted in connection to 9/11. So again, if there is evidence or any proof that he did it, such as fingerprints, money transfers ect, where is it?
Here it is again. There really is no way to explain it away.
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 07:10 PM
If the evidence does exist, it was never presented by anyone in the governmnent and you still ignored the fact that on the FBI's website that he is not wanted in connection to 9/11. So again, if there is evidence or any proof that he did it, such as fingerprints, money transfers ect, where is it?
Here it is again. There really is no way to explain it away.
Ok...if there is this big conspiracy and the gov't wanted people to believe that Osama did it...wouldn't they have the FBI accuse him of orchestrating 9/11? Wouldn't that help their case?
If the evidence does exist, it was never presented by anyone in the governmnent and you still ignored the fact that on the FBI's website that he is not wanted in connection to 9/11. So again, if there is evidence or any proof that he did it, such as fingerprints, money transfers ect, where is it?
Here it is again. There really is no way to explain it away.
Let me break the quote down for you...
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
They have no HARD evidence...not NO evidence. Meaning they have evidence, but not enough, according to their procedures to place Osama on their wanted list for that specific item.
It also does NOT say that he is not on the wanted list at all.
Just because evidence exists does NOT mean it has to be in the FBI's hands. Maybe they designated it under the charge of the CIA, meaning all evidence, hard or not, that the FBI has must be transfered to them, but the CIA does not need to transfer its evidence, hard or not, to the FBI.
Osama is on our most-wanted list. Just because the FBI isn't pursuing him doesn't mean no US department is. You haven't said shit about the CIA, you're ignoring an even larger investigation group than the FBI and claiming that what stretches of the imagination you do acknowledge as proof are enough to prove a conspiracy theory when it doesn't mean shit.
And going back to that news-poll you showed: that is a perfect example of you distorting information way the fuck out of whack to make a half-assed point you know that you cannot substantiate with any hard evidence of your own.
OMFG FORUM RAGE
04-14-2008, 07:20 PM
Here pimf listen to your healthy daily dose of everyones favorite CT Alex Jones!! (http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls)
Let me break the quote down for you...
They have no HARD evidence...not NO evidence. Meaning they have evidence, but not enough, according to their procedures to place Osama on their wanted list for that specific item.
It also does NOT say that he is not on the wanted list at all.
Just because evidence exists does NOT mean it has to be in the FBI's hands. Maybe they designated it under the charge of the CIA, meaning all evidence, hard or not, that the FBI has must be transfered to them, but the CIA does not need to transfer its evidence, hard or not, to the FBI.
Osama is on our most-wanted list. Just because the FBI isn't pursuing him doesn't mean no US department is. You haven't said shit about the CIA, you're ignoring an even larger investigation group than the FBI and claiming that what stretches of the imagination you do acknowledge as proof are enough to prove a conspiracy theory when it doesn't mean shit.
Why is he wanted by the FBI for the USS Cole and the first WTC attacks but not 9/11?
Where's this evidence then since you're so sure it exists. Money transfers, fingerprints ect?
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 07:54 PM
Why is he wanted by the FBI for the USS Cole and the first WTC attacks but not 9/11?
Where's this evidence then since you're so sure it exists. Money transfers, fingerprints ect?
Ok...if there is this big conspiracy and the gov't wanted people to believe that Osama did it...wouldn't they have the FBI accuse him of orchestrating 9/11? Wouldn't that help their case?
OMFG FORUM RAGE
04-14-2008, 07:58 PM
.wouldn't they have the FBI accuse him of orchestrating 9/11? Wouldn't that help their case?
what are you a idiot? every good CT knows its the CIA and Illuminati working in cahoots to usher in the New World Order.
Strap your tinfoil hats in!:lol:
Why is he wanted by the FBI for the USS Cole and the first WTC attacks but not 9/11?
Where's this evidence then since you're so sure it exists. Money transfers, fingerprints ect?
You're the one that claimed, against overwhelmingly popular belief, that that evidence does not exist. You're the one going against the grain, you made your claim first, I'm still demanding evidence of that initial claim, as is everyone else in this thread right now.
Instead of provide any evidence of your theory, you've proposed huge stretches of truth that don't prove anything, and have tried to turn it back on us to rebuke your unproven claim when you can't even prove it.
You're the one that claimed, against overwhelmingly popular belief, that that evidence does not exist. You're the one going against the grain, you made your claim first, I'm still demanding evidence of that initial claim, as is everyone else in this thread right now.
Instead of provide any evidence of your theory, you've proposed huge stretches of truth that don't prove anything, and have tried to turn it back on us to rebuke your unproven claim when you can't even prove it.
I'm going to keep it simple for you so you can follow along.
Media tried to say that Saddam/Al Qaeda was behind anthrax attacks. I gave evidence that proved otherwise.
Media tried to say 9/11 was perpetrated by Osamy. I gave you FBI website that says he is in fact not wanted by the FBI for 9/11 and they have no hard evidence linking him to 9/11.
I posted a CBS Angus and Reid poll that says more than half of America thinks the government is hiding/not telling the truth about 9/11.
You've been unable to refute any of that. All you've been able to do is say "bullshit" and the CIA may have hard evidence, but you've yet to present any of that evidence.
OMFG FORUM RAGE
04-14-2008, 09:00 PM
im beging to think this is a amped up version of ULTIMA1
I'm going to keep it simple for you so you can follow along.
Taking things slowly might have helped you from becoming so mistaken in the first place.
Media tried to say that Saddam/Al Qaeda was behind anthrax attacks. I gave evidence that proved otherwise.
Your sources were speculatory at best and twisted words around so hard to stretch what you wanted out of them it could hardly be taken as proof of anything.
Media tried to say 9/11 was perpetrated by Osamy. I gave you FBI website that says he is in fact not wanted by the FBI for 9/11 and they have no hard evidence linking him to 9/11.
Just because they're not trying to catch or link him to it doesn't mean the CIA isn't and hasn't. The media was spot-on, and again, you're omitting necessary bits of information that handily disprove your dumbass notions by not even mentioning the CIA.
We've been over what that quote you sited about the FBI actually said versus what you were trying to force it to say. All you managed to prove there was your inability to comprehend what you read.
I posted a CBS Angus and Reid poll that says more than half of America thinks the government is hiding/not telling the truth about 9/11.
CBS's polls are horse shit for credibility as are most polls. Gallup or Reuters, or nothing. News Network polls are notorious for inaccuracies. One course in statistics and you'd know this.
And at that I already explained to you that there is a difference between "X% believe the government lied about something" which is what it said, and "X% believe the government committed 9/11" which is what you falsely tried to suggest it said.
Again, all you're proving is lack of reading comprehension skills.
You've been unable to refute any of that. All you've been able to do is say "bullshit" and the CIA may have hard evidence, but you've yet to present any of that evidence.
I've refuted all of your mainstream sources of "accurate" information that "prove" what you believe over and over.
You're the one that made the bullshit claim, it's on you to prove it. You haven't. All you've done is speculated and warp information you found in half-assed research. I suggest you complete your research after taking a remedial course in reading comprehension, and then get back to us.
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 10:18 PM
Do you CTs go to a special school or something? Becasue you always do the same thing, ignore arguments that prove you wrong. I'll say it again:
Ok...if there is this big conspiracy and the gov't wanted people to believe that Osama did it...wouldn't they have the FBI accuse him of orchestrating 9/11? Wouldn't that help their case?
I've refuted all of your mainstream sources of "accurate" information that "prove" what you believe over and over.
You're the one that made the bullshit claim, it's on you to prove it. You haven't. All you've done is speculated and warp information you found in half-assed research. I suggest you complete your research after taking a remedial course in reading comprehension, and then get back to us.
Why don't you just drop by when you feel like explaining the hard evidence that links Osama to 9/11 and why CNN tried to spin the case that Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks k thanks.
Do you CTs go to a special school or something? Becasue you always do the same thing, ignore arguments that prove you wrong. I'll say it again:
Ok...if there is this big conspiracy and the gov't wanted people to believe that Osama did it...wouldn't they have the FBI accuse him of orchestrating 9/11? Wouldn't that help their case?
Why don't you ask the FBI that question. I'm not trying to prove who did it. I'm just telling you what is and what isn't.
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 10:46 PM
Why don't you ask the FBI that question. I'm not trying to prove who did it. I'm just telling you what is and what isn't.
ULTIMA1!?!?! Is that you???? :lmao:
Give me a valid answer, or leave. You're just making yourself look even more foolish.
ULTIMA1!?!?! Is that you???? :lmao:
Give me a valid answer, or leave. You're just making yourself look even more foolish.
You are the one asking stupid questions, like this is fucking oral exam or something. I don't owe you any answers.
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 10:58 PM
You are the one asking stupid questions, like this is fucking oral exam or something. I don't owe you any answers.
If you are going to make assertions, like you did, and wild ones at that, like you did, you have to be ready to back them up. You expect people to just lay down and accept your stupid theories? Sorry it doesn't work that way. If you are going to make a claim, you have to stand behind it. Or admit you are wrong. So now explain to me, if there is this big conspiracy and the gov't wanted people to believe that Osama did it...wouldn't they have the FBI accuse him of orchestrating 9/11? Wouldn't that help their case?
YES, I'm asking you a QUESTION. Please, don't tell me to ask the FBI. I'm asking YOU. I don't have to answer any of your questions becasue YOU are the one making the claim.
Why don't you just drop by when you feel like explaining the hard evidence that links Osama to 9/11 and why CNN tried to spin the case that Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks k thanks.
How about you actually provide hard evidence for your generally unaccepted accusations first?
If you are going to make assertions, like you did, and wild ones at that, like you did, you have to be ready to back them up. You expect people to just lay down and accept your stupid theories? Sorry it doesn't work that way. If you are going to make a claim, you have to stand behind it. Or admit you are wrong. So now explain to me, if there is this big conspiracy and the gov't wanted people to believe that Osama did it...wouldn't they have the FBI accuse him of orchestrating 9/11? Wouldn't that help their case?
You need hard evidence to bring charges up to the Justice Department, as the FBI source says.
YES, I'm asking you a QUESTION. Please, don't tell me to ask the FBI. I'm asking YOU. I don't have to answer any of your questions becasue YOU are the one making the claim.
What claim is that? They lied/covered up all kinds of things about 9/11 and anthrax. It's very simple.
When you can provide the hard evidence linking Saddam to the anthrax, and the hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11, then you can play forum big shot and ask as many dumb questions as you like. Until then...
What claim is that? They lied/covered up all kinds of things about 9/11 and Iraq. When you can provide the hard evidence linking Saddam to the anthrax, and the hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11, then you can play forum big shot and ask as many dumb questions as you link. Until then...
We're not asserting any link between anthrax and anyone.
But we'd still like you to provide hard evidence about lies and cover ups that corroborate your conspiracy theory.
If you're so damn sure of it, provide the proof.
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 11:15 PM
You need hard evidence to bring charges up to the Justice Department, as the FBI source says.BUT why wouldn't they just make up that evidence as part of the conspiracy? You're effectively trying to argue two sides of the same coin, that the government was malicious enough to orchestrate 9/11 but still followed standard protocols in its fake investigation. If they lied about something as large as 9/11, why would they be concerned about a real, factual link between Osama and 9/11, when they know it doesn't exsist becasue THEY are the ones who carried out the attack??
Your story just doesn't check out.
What claim is that? They lied/covered up all kinds of things about 9/11 and Iraq. When you can provide the hard evidence linking Saddam to the anthrax, and the hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11, then you can play forum big shot and ask as many dumb questions as you link. Until then...
I never made any claims, so I don't need any evidence, sorry. If I made a thread saying "LOOK! OSAMA DID 9/11!!!" then I'd need to post facts and evidence. But this is your thread where you are making outrageous claims, so YOU need to post facts and evidence. Does that make sense?
BUT why wouldn't they just make up that evidence as part of the conspiracy? You're effectively trying to argue two sides of the same coin, that the government was malicious enough to orchestrate 9/11 but still followed standard protocols in its fake investigation. If they lied about something as large as 9/11, why would they be concerned about a real, factual link between Osama and 9/11, when they know it doesn't exsist becasue THEY are the ones who carried out the attack??
Your story just doesn't check out.
What doesn't check out is "no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11." There's no way around that. If the they or the CIA have some evidence, then let's see it and be done with it.
We're not asserting any link between anthrax and anyone.
But we'd still like you to provide hard evidence about lies and cover ups that corroborate your conspiracy theory.
If you're so damn sure of it, provide the proof.
Regarding the anthrax attacks: CNN spun the story and tried to make the case that Saddam was behind the anthrax when it fact it came right from Ft. Detrick, MD.
"The FBI knows of a man who was caught entering the lab where the Anthrax used in the letters was kept, after he had been fired for a racially motivated attack on a co-worker. So, why is the FBI wasting its time with Steven Hatfill?"
Dr. Phillip Zach caught on tape (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARCHIVE/ctnow_com%20SPECIALS.htm)
"Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor, Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick. A surveillance camera recorded Zack being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992, apparently by Dr. Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist and close friend of Zack's, according to a report filed by a security guard.
Zack could not be reached for comment. In an interview this week, Rippy said that she doesn't remember letting Zack in, but that he occasionally stopped by after he was transferred off the base.
"After he left, he had no [authorized] access to the building. Other people let him in," she said. "He knew a lot of people there and he was still part of the military. I can tell you, there was no suspicious stuff going on there with specimens."
Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They had formed a clique that was accused of harassing the Egyptian-born Assaad, who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination.
Assaad said he had believed the harassment was behind him until last October, until after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
He said that is when the FBI contacted him, saying someone had mailed an anonymous letter - a few days before the existence of anthrax-laced mail became known - naming Assaad as a potential bioterrorist. FBI agents decided the note was a hoax after interviewing Assaad.
But Assaad said he believes the note's timing makes the author a suspect in the anthrax attacks, and he is convinced that details of his work contained in the letter mean the author must be a former Fort Detrick colleague."
And regarding the poll, it's not my problem that it doesn't meet your qualifications. A CBS poll is still a CBS poll at the end of the day. Half the people don't truth the government on 9/11. That's it.
PitwrkzZ1
04-14-2008, 11:34 PM
What doesn't check out is "no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11." There's no way around that. If the they or the CIA have some evidence, then let's see it and be done with it.
:banghead:
There being "no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11" is in support that the government had no involvement in 9/11. If they did, they would have fabricated evidence that Osama WAS behind the attack by now, right?
:banghead:
There being "no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11" is in support that the government had no involvement in 9/11. If they did, they would have fabricated evidence that Osama WAS behind the attack by now, right?
Not everyone in government is bad and everyone is good. It's complex, but one thing you can't deny: that there is no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11.
So if you can't provide evidence that says otherwise (money transfers, receipts, fingerprints ect), then I'm done. See ya!
What doesn't check out is "no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11." There's no way around that. If the they or the CIA have some evidence, then let's see it and be done with it.
The fact that you're refusing to acknowledge the evidence that the other big investigation department might have, and that Osama is on our most wanted list.
I'm not going to do your research for you: you're the one who had to fuck up your research by not finishing it, go finish it and get a valid argument for your point. Mine isn't the one up for debate here: yours is. Go educate yourself.
Regarding the anthrax attacks: CNN spun the story and tried to make the case that Saddam was behind the anthrax when it fact it came right from Ft. Detrick, MD.
That's CNN. Did Fox? CBS? NBC? CSPAN? One news source getting a story wrong isn't tantamount to a conspiracy.
And regarding the poll, it's not my problem that it doesn't meet your qualifications. A CBS poll is still a CBS poll at the end of the day. Half the people don't truth the government on 9/11. That's it.
And at the end of the day, CBS polls are full of shit. Like I said: go ask a professor in a school of statistics at an accredited university, and they will tell you to take a hike with trying to use anything short of Gallup or Reuters.
Polls from CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc cannot be accepted as credible statistical figures.
PitwrkzZ1
04-15-2008, 07:40 AM
Not everyone in government is bad and everyone is good. It's complex, but one thing you can't deny: that there is no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11.Please explain it to me. Explain your position on the issue. Or is that too hard?
So if you can't provide evidence that says otherwise (money transfers, receipts, fingerprints ect), then I'm done. See ya!
So if nobody can come up with hard evidence linking Osama with 9/11, that evidence doesn't exist and it is impossible for him to be involved with 9/11 :rolleyes: Gotcha.
Even though no evidence of Osama's guilt takes away from your position.
How about you come up with proof since you are the one making the claims?
OMFG FORUM RAGE
04-15-2008, 09:48 AM
everyone grab your tinfoil hats!!!
Please explain it to me. Explain your position on the issue. Or is that too hard?
So if nobody can come up with hard evidence linking Osama with 9/11, that evidence doesn't exist and it is impossible for him to be involved with 9/11 :rolleyes: Gotcha.
Even though no evidence of Osama's guilt takes away from your position.
How about you come up with proof since you are the one making the claims?
Nah, it's a lot more entertaining to watch you guys stonewall and not be able to provide the hard evidence that links Osamy to 9/11 :D
Remember this?
"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you" (in reference to why Osamy has not been captured)
Nah, it's a lot more entertaining to watch you guys stonewall and not be able to provide the hard evidence that links Osamy to 9/11 :D
Remember this?
Once again, you haven't provided anything but speculation that sucks at that. That quote doesn't even relate to whether Osama (for fuck's sake, man, spell it right) did 9/11 or not. You're not proving anything, and just making a retard out of yourself.
Once again, you haven't provided anything but speculation that sucks at that. That quote doesn't even relate to whether Osama (for fuck's sake, man, spell it right) did 9/11 or not. You're not proving anything, and just making a retard out of yourself.
Just one credit card transaction that traces back to Osama, just one. That's all I want and then we can be done with this silliness.
kevinsmith
04-15-2008, 06:56 PM
Just one credit card transaction that traces back to Osama, just one. That's all I want and then we can be done with this silliness.
Unfortunately, Osama's purchase of ACME building-crashing-in-to-jets (Item #50011627-551) was done with cash. Harder to trace.
Just one credit card transaction that traces back to Osama, just one. That's all I want and then we can be done with this silliness.
Not sure you really understand the concept of not using a credit card to avoid a paper trail, there slick. American Express: terrorists always leave the cave without it.
Not sure you really understand the concept of not using a credit card to avoid a paper trail, there slick. American Express: terrorists always leave the cave without it.
No, I think you mean they never leave the cave without their Koran, which were conveniently found around locations, like the strip bar, Shuckems (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090701shuckums) :lol:
No, I think you mean they never leave the cave without their Koran, which were conveniently found around locations, like the strip bar, Shuckems (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090701shuckums) :lol:
Cooperative Research History Commons: A Project for the Center of Grassroots Oversight
Yeah...a bunch of stories posted by anonymous contributors...yep, that's credible.
You really suck at this. It's getting old.
Cooperative Research History Commons: A Project for the Center of Grassroots Oversight
Yeah...a bunch of stories posted by anonymous contributors...yep, that's credible.
You really suck at this. It's getting old.
Well they "found" Atta's passport (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq) at the WTC ruins lol along with his Korans, but nothing from Osama was found. Why?
PitwrkzZ1
04-15-2008, 10:43 PM
Well they "found" Atta's passport (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq) at the WTC ruins lol along with his Korans, but nothing from Osama was found. Why?
Maybe because Osama wasn't on the plane.
PartyTaco
04-15-2008, 10:46 PM
So... Can the supreme court render decisions concerning social issues (slavery) effectively?
:D
Maybe because Osama wasn't on the plane.
DUn, dun, dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
Goddamn, what'd he want, a picture of Osama doing thumbs up with the plane hitting the Pentagon behind him as proof Osama had a tie to it? Or would he just write that off as Osama enjoying a vacation at a bad time.
kevinsmith
04-16-2008, 12:52 AM
DUn, dun, dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
Goddamn, what'd he want, a picture of Osama doing thumbs up with the plane hitting the Pentagon behind him as proof Osama had a tie to it? Or would he just write that off as Osama enjoying a vacation at a bad time.
Maybe Osama was that Remmy* lookin' dude who's camera was found in the remains of the WTC...
*Guy who went white pride nuts in the movie Higher Learning.
DUn, dun, dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
Goddamn, what'd he want, a picture of Osama doing thumbs up with the plane hitting the Pentagon behind him as proof Osama had a tie to it? Or would he just write that off as Osama enjoying a vacation at a bad time.
I think I found the evidence that you and all the OTCs refused to provide. I think I'm convinced now that Osamy really did do 9/11!
An anonymous source at the Al Jazeera Network (http://newworldorwell.blogspot.com/2006/09/meeting.html) has leaked this audio recording of a meeting between Osama bin Laden and his accomplices, showing them planning the 9-11 attacks. Here is the transcript of the audio as translated by CIA translator Azhar Al-Masood.
Osama bin Laden: In the name of Allah and the prophet Mohammed, peace be on his name, this meeting will come to order. Brother al-Zawahiri, will you please read the agenda?
Ayman al-Zawahiri: Praise Allah. Here are the items for discussion.
• Item 1: Strike at the heart of the great Satan and bring the wrath of Allah upon all it’s inhabitants.
• Item 2: Unite the entire Islamic world in a jihad against the godless infidels.
• Item 3: Replace the plumbing in the main cave with copper piping.
Osama: What is wrong with the plumbing?
Mohammed Atta: Every time al-Shahri flushes the toilet, the water turns scalding hot in the shower.
Wael al-Shahri: Well, if you wouldn’t hog the shower every night...
Atta: Cleanliness is next to Godliness! A curse upon you!
Al-Shahri: Zionist lackey!!
Osama: Order! Order! Brother al-Shahri, that was a blasphemous comment. For this, you will attend flight school.
Al-Shahri: Huh?
Osama: Which brings me to my plan. We smash four jetliners into the World Trade Center and other targets to be determined. Five volunteers will board each plane, take over the controls and fly into the targets, killing themselves in a glorious sacrifice for Allah. Any questions?
Hamza Algha: Just one, great leader. Are you out of your fucking mind?
Osama: That does it. flight school for you!
Algha: But I have a wife. A family!
Osama: They will understand. We’ll make some martyrdom videos.
Atta: Can I wear my red Jihad headband?
Osama: You can wear whatever you like.
Al-Zawahiri: But we already struck once at the towers. If they don’t fall this time, it will look like we failed again.
Osama: According to my calculations, the towers will collapse due to the intense heat of the burning jet fuel.
Al-Zawahiri: But no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire. A hydrocarbon-based fire doesn’t burn near hot enough to melt steel.
Osama: Fool! You don’t have to melt the steel, just weaken its integrity.
Al-Zawahiri: But won’t it just bend? The towers will sag like a limp male member. We will be the laughing stock of the world.
Osama: It won’t bend. The floors are supported by trusses. When these fail, the floors will progressively collapse in a pancake effect.
Al-Zawahiri: That’s ludicrous!! Er... I mean... could your holiness be mistaken? Is it really that easy to demolish a building? If so, controlled demolition teams could just set buildings on fire and save a lot of money on explosives.
Osama: (impatiently) The jetliners will strip away the fireproofing, and...
Al-Zawahiri: Fireproofing? But steel still won’t melt even without...
Osama: Silence! Ali-baba [Bin Laden likes to give his associates nicknames] you have to trust me on this one. Now, do we have any volunteers for this glorious suicide mission?
Wail Alshehri: I would volunteer, but, uh... I believe I can serve Allah better here on Earth. Change the system from within, as it were.
Osama: But with this act, you will ascend to paradise and have 72 virgins at your feet.
Atta: I will do it. Praise Allah.
Al-Shahri: Great leader, is it possible to have the 72 virgins first, then find our path to Allah?
Osama: No that is not possible. OK, if there are no more volunteers, I’m going to send all 19 of you.
Al-Zawahiri: Why not 20? Aren’t there four planes?
Osama: We have a 20th hijacker in the states, trying to find out if you can learn to fly a jetliner without having to take off or land.
Al-Zawahiri: Won’t that arouse suspicion?
Osama: No. They will never connect the dots. Not on their budgets.
Al-Shahri: Well, I’m going to get good and drunk the night before, that’s for sure. In a strip club. They have in America what is called “lap dance.” You sit in a chair, and the girl...
Osama: Silence! Our mission is to kill infidels, not to dance on laps. Anyway, if you must have this “lap dance” make sure to bring your Koran. And don’t leave it on the bar like you did in ’93!
Al-Zawahiri: But what about the US Air Force? It is the most powerful and sophisticated in the world, death to the infidels.
Osama: (chuckles) Believe me, they’re going to be so flustered and off-guard, they won’t be able to get a fighter off the ground. Besides, their defense is focused ******d, in a cold war posture. They won’t be able to respond to a domestic threat. Not without a Homeland Security department.
Al-Zawahiri: Are you sure? What about that golfer, Payne Stewart? They intercepted his jet over Ohio in a matter of minutes.
Osama: My brother, have faith! We’ll turn off the transponders. Sure, they’ll still show up on ground radar, but who’s monitoring radar at 8:00 in the morning? Americans are late sleepers, death to them. Besides, they’ll never be able to imagine planes being used as weapons to crash into buildings.
Al-Zawahiri: But suppose we strike, say, the Pentagon. How are we going to fly a jet all that way without air traffic control?
Osama: Allah will guide us.
[general murmurs of assent]
Osama: Now to the operational details. Kahlid Sheik Mohammed, you will be the mastermind. What is your plan?
Sheik Mohammed: There are flight schools in Florida where you can learn to fly Cessnas.
Al-Zawahiri: (sarcastically) How is learning to fly a puddle jumper going to prepare these clowns to navigate jumbo jets? They can’t even drive a car.
Osama: He’s right. Maybe we should rent a simulator.
Sheik Mohammed: It can be arranged. A few hours in one of those babies should get them up to speed. We could also get some flight manuals in Arabic. They can study those on the way to the airport.
Osama: Perfect. I think we’re good to go.
Al-Zawahiri: Great leader, I mean no disrespect but... Why are we doing this? What can we possibly gain? This will unite the Americans and the world against us. Their leaders will use this to rally public support for invasion of our lands, while increasing the budgets of their military and intelligence agencies. I think we’re playing right into their hands.
Osama: Perhaps. But at the same time, they will use this opportunity to deprive Americans of what we hate most – their freedom.
(enthusiastic shouts of agreement, chants of “We hate freedom!”)
Osama: Mark my words. As a result of 9-10 [note: the plot was delayed a day when a hungover Atta missed his connecting flight] dissent will be declared “unpatriotic.” They’ll launch domestic surveillance programs. They’ll detain people without charge and without legal representation. Basically, they’ll trash their own constitution. Mission accomplished.
Al-Zawahiri: Well, no one has said how we’re going to pay for all this. Osama is cut off from the family fortune. And if we do the plumbing thing, we’re going to pay out the wazoo. Do you know how hard it is to find a good plumber in Afghanistan?
Osama: We will not have to carry out this mission alone. The infidels have many in their ranks who want this attack to happen, to further their agenda of world domination. I have many intelligence contacts from the Mujahadeen days, and they...
Al-Shahri: Man, those were the days! Hangin' with the CIA, shooting stinger missiles at the Russkies, getting wasted on Vodka... that’s what I call Jihad!
Sheik Mohammed: (ignoring Al-Shahri) With the infidel’s technology, they could paint drones to look like commercial aircraft and fly them into the buildings using GPS. They had a plan to do that in the 60s – Operation Northwoods – so they could start a war with Cuba. We wouldn’t even have to sacrifice our own men. They could be patsies.
Al-Shahri: I move for patsies!
Alshehri: I second the motion!
Atta: What about the virgins?
Al Zawahiri: (ahem) But great leader, would this not be collaborating with the enemy?
Osama: It is written. To serve God, one must sometimes deal with the devil.
Al Zawahiri: (thumbing through the Koran) I don’t see that written anywhere.
Osama: Besides, they’ll blow their own agenda. I know these guys. My family did business with the Bushes for years. They could screw up corn flakes. First chance he gets, Bush will attack that bastard Saddam and they’ll get bogged down in a quagmire that will drain their military and divide America. In the process, they’ll create new generations of terrorists for decades to come.
What's really sad is that you actually took all the time to write that to be facetious.
Tell me: what the flying fuck did the US have to gain from using Osama as a scapegoat and invading Afghanistan? Why not just pin it directly on Saddam from the get-go and fight a one-front war in Iraq, leading to Iran, instead of exhausting our forces on a whole separate front that was not at all important to the ability to invade either Iraq or Iran?
What did we stand to gain from pinning it on Osama and invading Afghanistan instead of pinning it on Saddam to invade Iraq with unwaivering public support instead of using up the perfect get-out-of-jail-free card on an inconsequential shit-hole and barely getting the pass to invade Iraq on flimsy WMD claims?
If your conspiracy holds true, it makes shit for sense. There's no oil in Afghanistan, it's a horrible staging ground to invade Iran, and there were far greater violators of human rights in the Middle East that were just as capable of being scapegoated as the Taliban. You might actually have something to work with had we pinned it on the ultra-target of the US in the Middle East for over a decade, Saddam. There's no profitable motive in pinning it on Osama.
What's really sad is that you actually took all the time to write that to be facetious.
No, what is sad is that you don't have a sense of humor :p
No, what is sad is that you don't have a sense of humor :p
Excuse me for thinking the day my uncle died is no laughing matter.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.