Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-02-2008, 11:40 AM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
"YOU, THE JURY" Do TFP Members Believe The Official Version of What Happened on 9/11?

I am seeking the opinion of as broad a segment of the TFP membership as possible. Here is "the evidence" that white house, defense, CIA, and FAA officials did not make a sincere effort to disclose accurately, the events leading up to, and during the attacks on 9/11.

If you do not think that there is enough evidence that the official story is flawed and contradicted to the point that it is compromised, please post your opinion on what you would need to see, in addtion to the following, to raise doubts in your mind that would be great enough to change your opinion:

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/wa...hp&oref=slogin
By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 19, 2007

WASHINGTON — At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel....

...The only White House official previously reported to have taken part in the discussions was Ms. Miers, who served as a deputy chief of staff to President Bush until early 2005, when she took over as White House counsel. While one official had said previously that Ms. Miers’s involvement began in 2003, other current and former officials said they did not believe she joined the discussions until 2005......

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS...pes/index.html
December 21, 2007 -- Updated 1926 GMT (0326 HKT)

White House: NYT wrong about CIA tapes

.. The Times ran a correction in Thursday's paper saying "the White House itself has not officially said anything on the subject, so its role was not 'wider than it said.' "

The White House release Wednesday said administration officials have generally declined to comment on the matter and denied making any misleading statements. It said the "no comment" policy would continue. ...
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/op...on&oref=slogin
Op-Ed Contributors
Stonewalled by the C.I.A.

By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Published: January 2, 2008

MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.

The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. <h3>Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations....</h3>

....In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

<i>Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman,
respectively, of the 9/11 commission.</i>
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/wa...erland&emc=rss
October 1, 2006
9/11 Panel Members Weren’t Told of Meeting
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Members of the Sept. 11 commission said today that they were alarmed that they were told nothing about a White House meeting in July 2001 at which George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, is reported to have warned Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and failed to persuade her to take action.

Details of the previously undisclosed meeting on July 10, 2001, two months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, were first reported last week in a new book by the journalist Bob Woodward.

The final report from the Sept. 11 commission made no mention of the meeting nor did it suggest there had been such an encounter between Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice, now secretary of state.

Since release of the book, “State of Denial,” the White House and Ms. Rice have disputed major elements of Mr. Woodward’s account, with Ms. Rice insisting through spokesmen that there had been no such exchange in a private meeting with Mr. Tenet and that he had expressed none of the frustration attributed to him in Mr. Woodward’s book.

“It really didn’t match Secretary Rice’s recollection of the meeting at all,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”

“It kind of left us scratching our heads because we don’t believe that’s an accurate account,” he said.

Although passages of the book suggest that Mr. Tenet was a major source for Mr. Woodward, the former intelligence director has refused to comment on the book....
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...00.html?sub=AR
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03

...Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,"
said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."....
<h3>Please click the link in the following quote box and read the news reporting in the post:</h3>
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...40#post2372640
....In the preceding quote box is news reporting that:

a.) The 9/11 Commission chairman and many of the members believed that testimony from military commanders and from FAA officials to the Commission regarding the timeline of events related to the four hijacked airliners was untrue and/or intentionally misleading.

b.) As a compromise, the Commission members agreed to allow the FAA and Defense Dept., to investigate themsleves, regarding the alleged false testimony, instead of filing their suspicions of false testimony with the Justice Dept. as criminal complaints.

c.)The Inspectors General of both the Defense Dept. and the FAA took more than two years to publicly release any results of their respective investigations about false testimony. THe Defense Dept. Inspector General actually completed his report 14 months before releasing it's contents in response to a long pending FOIA request filed by the press.

d.)The Defense Dept. report contradicted the 9/11 Commission report by claiming that:
"..initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping..." and "...On Sept. 11, the report said, air-defense watch centers used handwritten logs that were not always reliable...." The excerpt from the 9/11 Commission Report (Below) clearly contradicts the Inspector General's report, the logs and the tape recordings were already compared by the 9/11 Commission to coordinate the timeline of the sequence of events for accuracy.

e.)The Defense Dept. Inspector General told the NY Times in early August, 2006, two years after the 9/11 Commission requested an investigation into false testimony:

"A spokesman for the inspector general’s office, William P. Goehring, said that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report that is still in preparation.

But Mr. Goehring suggested that the second report would exonerate the commanders....."

I can find no record of the promised "second report", ever being released !!!!!!!!!....
Quote:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/050607.html
Tenet-Bush Pre-9/11 'Small Talk'

By Robert Parry
May 6, 2007

In late August 2001, when aggressive presidential action might have changed the course of U.S. history, CIA Director George Tenet made a special trip to Crawford, Texas, to get George W. Bush to focus on an imminent threat of a spectacular al-Qaeda attack only to have the conversation descend into meaningless small talk.

Alarmed CIA officials already had held an extraordinary meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10 to lay out the accumulating evidence of an impending attack and had delivered on Aug. 6 a special “Presidential Daily Brief” to Bush entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”

“A few weeks after the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,” where Tenet had grown up.

Tenet’s trip to Crawford – like the July 10 meeting with Rice and the Aug. 6 briefing paper for Bush – failed to shock the administration out of its lethargy nor elicit the emergency steps that the CIA and other counterterrorism specialists wanted.

While Tenet and Bush made small talk about “the flora and the fauna,” al-Qaeda operatives put the finishing touches on their plans.

It wasn’t until Sept. 4 – a week before 9/11 – when senior Bush administration officials, including Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “finally reconvened in the White House Situation Room” to discuss counter-terrorism plans “that had been lingering unresolved all summer long,” Tenet wrote
.   click to show 

On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counterterrorism.

Also on Sept. 6, former Sen. Gary Hart, who had co-chaired a commission on terrorism, was again trying to galvanize the Bush administration into showing some urgency about the threat. Hart met with Rice and urged the White House to move faster. Rice agreed to pass on Hart’s concerns to higher-ups.
Quote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030003
Summary: NBC's Nightly News and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume uncritically reported the new White House explanation for President Bush's claim that <h3>"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."</h3>
Bush used a remarkably similar phrase to hide what he knew BEFORE 9/11, about the potential threat of terrorists hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings, just five days after 9/11.....

<p>This is on the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html ">http://www.whitehouse.gov/...</a> website, but it is never quoted....only Condi's similar declaration....months later, gets repeated!</p><p>
Quote:
"For Immediate Release<br>
Office of the Press Secretary<br>
<b>September 16, 2001</p><p>
Remarks by the President</b> Upon Arrival<br>
The South Lawn </p><p>

<b>....No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people</b> - and show no remorse. &nbsp;This is a new kind of &nbsp;-- a new kind of evil........</p><p>
.......Q &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Mr. President, would you confirm what the Vice President said this morning, that at one point during this crisis you gave an order to shoot down any civilian airliner that approached the Capitol? Was that a difficult decision to make?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;THE PRESIDENT: &nbsp;I gave our military the orders necessary to protect Americans, do whatever it would take to protect Americans. &nbsp;And of course that's difficult. &nbsp;<b>Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.</b> &nbsp;And so, obviously, when I was told what was taking place, when I was informed that an unidentified aircraft was headed to the heart of the capital, I was concerned. &nbsp;I wasn't concerned about my decision; I was more concerned about the lives of innocent Americans. &nbsp;I had realized there on the ground in Florida we were under attack. &nbsp;But <b>never did I dream we would have been under attack this way."</b>
</p><p>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&amp;contentId=A9449-2004Apr13&amp;notFound=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...</a><br>
By Bradley Graham<br>
Washington Post Staff Writer<br>
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16</p><p>
While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a </p><p>
scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday. <br>
</p><p>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html">http://www.mdw.army.mil/...</a><br>
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates<br>

scenarios in preparing for emergencies<br>
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan<br>
MDW News Service</p><p>
Exercise SimulationsWashington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 -- The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the </p><p>
Pentagon courtyard.<br>
<br>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/17/attack/main509471.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/...</a><br>
'99 Report Warned Of Suicide Hijacking</p><p>
WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002</p><p>

Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, </p><p>
said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat.</p><p>
(AP) Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's </p><p>
terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building...... <br>
</p><p>
<B>......"I don't think anybody</B> could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade </p><p>
Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked </p><p>
airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday. <br>
From the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB delivered to Bush while he was on vacation at his Crawford, TX ranch.....the words that he used all of his presidential powers to attempt to conceal from you.....and from me:
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

Saturday, April 10, 2004 Posted: 6:51 PM EDT (2251 GMT)

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

.......Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York......
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
Updated 4/19/2004 3:08 PM

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.

On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.

On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."

President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska....

Last edited by host; 01-02-2008 at 12:09 PM..
host is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:45 AM   #2 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Yes.

I think perhaps the circumstances were abused to appoint individuals, enact certain laws, and ensure the power of certain individuals, but I do believe that terrorists crashed planes into the Twin Towers. I personally find a conspiracy such as "controlled demolition" (and similar explanations) to be quite ludicrous.

All of your quoted articles point to an abuse of power before, during, and following the attacks, but do not point to the actual "story" of 9/11. I'm not surprised that politicians would abuse a natural disaster to garner support for their political causes, nor am I surprised that they would mislead their constituents and peers in order to further aggregate their power.

I think that "evidence" that similar simulations had occurred prior to or during the 9/11 attacks is evidence only in retrospect; I expect that drills of these sorts happen regularly, and quite frankly I expect individuals who claim to support domestic security to be doing such training exercises.

But that has nothing to do with what actually happened ON 9/11. I can believe in terrorist-filled 747s without simultaneously absolving politicians of wrongdoing, as you seem to imply with the title of this thread.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 01-02-2008 at 11:50 AM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:55 AM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Yes.

I think perhaps the circumstances were abused to appoint individuals, enact certain laws, and ensure the power of certain individuals, but I do believe that terrorists crashed planes into the Twin Towers. I personally find a conspiracy such as "controlled demolition" (and similar explanations) to be quite ludicrous.

All of your quoted articles point to an abuse of power before, during, and following the attacks, but do not point to the actual "story" of 9/11. I'm not surprised that politicians would abuse a natural disaster to garner support for their political causes, nor am I surprised that they would mislead their constituents and peers in order to further aggregate their power.

I think that "evidence" that similar simulations had occurred prior to or during the 9/11 attacks is evidence only in retrospect; I expect that drills of these sorts happen regularly, and quite frankly I expect individuals who claim to support domestic security to be doing such training exercises.

But that has nothing to do with what actually happened ON 9/11. I can believe in terrorist-filled 747s without simultaneously absolving politicians of wrongdoing, as you seem to imply with the title of this thread.
Thank you for your response, JinnKai. I really want to avoid speculating what actually did happen on 9/11. I am alarmed because of a comparison of the official story, and what has been disclosed since to discredit it.

As the OP lead in states:
Quote:
Here is "the evidence" that white house, defense, CIA, and FAA officials did not make a sincere effort to disclose accurately, the events leading up to, and during the attacks on 9/11.

If you do not think that there is enough evidence that the official story is flawed and contradicted to the point that it is compromised, please post your opinion on what you would need to see, in addtion to the following, to raise doubts in your mind that would be great enough to change your opinion:
I think if we attempt to keep responses within the above limits, we can better determine the consensus of the membership at TFP. Has the elected government and it's appointees been sincerely forthcoming about the events that define it's entire seven year tenure, or not?
host is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:55 AM   #4 (permalink)
Riding the Ocean Spray
 
BadNick's Avatar
 
Location: S.E. PA in U Sofa
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Yes...

I pretty much agree with JinnKai's position.
BadNick is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:06 PM   #5 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Everyone: Oh god, it's Willravel....

No, I do not believe that there is enough evidence to support the story told in the 9/11 Commission and more MSM sources regarding the massacres on 9/11 and not only that, but there is plenty of evidence that contradicts said story. Unfortunately, there is not enough information to draw a picture of what really did happen, so we're left in the dark. Is Loose Change correct? No, the Die Hard with a Vengeance scenario is not supported by evidence. Is the official story correct? No, it's contradicted by evidence. The truth lies somewhere in between.

I won't get into it too much more than that, because there are other threads that I'd simply be repeating. Again.

I do want to cover two points:
1) It's clear to anyone, theorist or not, that the administration has benefited from 9/11 and has used it to their own selfish ends.
2) Host has a lot of good information in his posts. It'd be a shame to ignore it because it seems like too long of a read.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:10 PM   #6 (permalink)
Let's put a smile on that face
 
blahblah454's Avatar
 
Location: On the road...
I read most of it, that must of taken a long time to put together.

I don't believe in what the government says happened. And I also don't believe the extremists who think that there were no planes at all. I actually agree with willravel on this one, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Lets not turn this into a conspiracy thread though and just keep the wild accusations and figure pointing's to ourselves.
blahblah454 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:12 PM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNick
I pretty much agree with JinnKai's position.
I want to emphasize this again, from the OP lead in:
Quote:
....If you do not think that there is enough evidence that the official story is flawed and contradicted to the point that it is compromised, please post your opinion on what you would need to see, in addtion to the following, to raise doubts in your mind that would be great enough to change your opinion:
host is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:15 PM   #8 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
2) Host has a lot of good information in his posts. It'd be a shame to ignore it because it seems like too long of a read.
Let me fix that for you.

2) Host has a lot of one sided information in his posts meant to lead you to think there was a conspiracy of some kind. It'd be a shame to ignore it because I think 9/11 was an inside job.

Seriously christ on a cracker, not this shit again.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:17 PM   #9 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Let me fix that for you.

2) Host has a lot of one sided information in his posts meant to lead you to think there was a conspiracy of some kind. It'd be a shame to ignore it because I think 9/11 was an inside job.

Seriously christ on a cracker, not this shit again.
Not this shit again? You mean the 'shit' where you flame and bait and nearly get banned? Are you really interested in reverting to Ustwo circa 2005?

Just answer the questions in the OP. That's the thread.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:28 PM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Let me fix that for you.

2) Host has a lot of one sided information in his posts meant to lead you to think there was a conspiracy of some kind. It'd be a shame to ignore it because I think 9/11 was an inside job.

Seriously christ on a cracker, not this shit again.
okay....go through my OP, pick out examples of one sided info and provide support that the example(s) is one sided, and I'll remove anything that you can support, is one sided.

Otherwise, what you are doing here is what it looks like at first glance....an unsupported attempt to discredit me, to distract from the evidence I've posted of a long deliberate pattern of official deception.....
host is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:29 PM   #11 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
If you do not think that there is enough evidence that the official story is flawed and contradicted to the point that it is compromised, please post your opinion on what you would need to see, in addtion to the following, to raise doubts in your mind that would be great enough to change your opinion:
You're right, I didn't see this section of you OP, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asking me what more I'd need to see (within reason) to believe that the official story is flawed and contradicted to the point that it is compromised?

I think you've worded this carefully, so I'll address the words carefully. I agree with two of three points.

I believe;

(1) The official story is flawed. There are details of the events which we will necessarily never know (passenger conversations, fuel levels in the jets, etc). There are also details which cannot be released, for legitimate security reasons (specific terrorist plans), and there are details which could've been released but were not. The last category is naturally of concern, but I think it (like I mentioned in my previous posts) stems from their desire to stay in power. By hiding some of the details, their authority is necessitated, and their arguments given more credence. I think it is natural for leaders to omit occasional details which pose them in a bad light.

(2) The story is contradicted. I think this is another effect of bureaucracy and the number of people involved in such a thing. If you tell two people the same story of a series of events, they'll likely repeat that story in two very different ways. If you continue this series (like the childhood game Operator), the end result is a very different story. This alone IS NOT enough to discredit the original story, however. The 'operator' in the game above presumably knows the whole story and tells the truth, so the fact that his compatriots do not repeat the same story does not invalidate his.

And yet, when we arrive at "(3) the story is compromised", I disagree. Despite obvious lies, confusion, contradiction and direct omission of information, I do not believe that the general story ("Airplanes hijacked by a terrorist organization crashed into the Twin Towers, causing structural failure and eventual collapse") to be compromised.

As for the concluding question, I think I would need the following in order to believe the story was compromised:

(1) Substantial and verifiable admissions by persons directly involved in the "actual" events. The main conspiracy theory is that it was some sort of thermite-powered controlled demolition, so I would need a verifiable engineer or worker who blew the whistle, and claimed that he was involved in the planning or execution of such a demolition.

(2) Evidence with demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that "The Powers That Be" were aware of the individuals discovered in (1).

and

(3) Scientific research which earnestly claimed that a controlled demolition (or similar conspiracy) was a MORE feasible explanation than the one we all witnessed through the media (planes crashing into buildings), including analysis of the cost of such a conspiracy, the materials needed, and the engineering required to architect such a thing.

** The problem for us, host, is that it is unlikely, for a multitude of reasons, that any of my required evidence, (1), (2), or (3) will ever be available, or in the case that it is available, reputable enough for me to believe. And because of this, I will continue to believe that ALTHOUGH the President, VP, and other members of the administration manipulated the fallout of such a tragedy for their own personal and political gain, the event itself was not previously 'orchestrated', as I believe you do.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:31 PM   #12 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
so wait....before the snarkiness mounts...

the op seems to hinge on a linkage between the destroyed interrogation tapes and 9/11 attacks....i dont really see the linkage--the case in the op seems circumstantial, so that IF you were inclined to doubt the official line a priori, you COULD fit the tapes into it---but that presupposes an inclination to doubt a priori.

how would you argue to someone who is NOT inclined to doubt the official story that there are grounds TO doubt it?

in other words, i think the op presupposes what it could (or should, depending on your view of such things) argue directly.

the older threads on this have been mostly in paranoia...i suspect that folk have read through some of that stuff at least, so i'm NOT asking for a plot summary---just the argument, please.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:38 PM   #13 (permalink)
Eat your vegetables
 
genuinegirly's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Arabidopsis-ville
Crazy lot of articles there. I'm not going to bother to read them, sorry =/

I don't see why our government would actively choose to do nothing if they knew that the world trade center was going to fall.

I have enough faith in people on the whole to discount that possibility.

Now, maybe someone did know. If that person knew, and was incapable of doing anything because the bureaucracy was too much, that's a shame. If one person knew who was able to do something about it, they must not have realized what was going on. If one person knew, but they were currupt enough to want to kill a bunch of people, then... well...

that's another issue.
__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy
genuinegirly is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:54 PM   #14 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
Isn't it obvious?
9-11 was planned by the dumbest evil genius in the history of fascism and his bald sidekick Darth Cheney.

And yes, the numerous articles pasted above are all tilted in one direction; but to be fair, the OP himself says as much:
"here is "the evidence" that white house, defense, CIA, and FAA officials did not make a sincere effort to disclose accurately, the events leading up to, and during the attacks on 9/11."

That being obvious, I'm not sure why ustwo deserved the spanking he was administered. Besides, this is not the Politics board. Haven't the personal attacks and petty squabbling done sufficient damage to that board? My fear is that the cancer in that forum is now trying to metastasize in the whole community.

This topic is plainly paranoia and should be moved off of the General Discussion board. Not paranoia, you say? Then how about politics?
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:30 PM   #15 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
That being obvious, I'm not sure why ustwo deserved the spanking he was administered.
How would you feel if you started a thread and all you got was "not this shit again"?
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:38 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
I've yet to see an 'official' government report EVER tell the whole and complete truth about an issue. It's how they save their reputation and keep the populace calm by feeding them the most plausible set of circumstances to suspend disbelief.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:50 PM   #17 (permalink)
Here
 
World's King's Avatar
 
Location: Denver City Denver
Planes being flown by a bunch of crazy fucks hit a couple of buildings.

Thousands of people died.

The crazy fucks did it because they don't like us.

We don't like them.

Our Government is full of morons.

We voted for them.

The poor from out country are now killing the poor in other countries so the rich can keep being rich.









What else is there to know?
__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown
World's King is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:53 PM   #18 (permalink)
comfortably numb...
 
uncle phil's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
Quote:
Originally Posted by World's King
Planes being flown by a bunch of crazy fucks hit a couple of buildings.

Thousands of people died.

The crazy fucks did it because they don't like us.

We don't like them.

Our Government is full of morons.

We voted for them.

The poor from out country are now killing the poor in other countries so the rich can keep being rich.









What else is there to know?
i'm good with this...
__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.
uncle phil is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:58 PM   #19 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I've yet to see an 'official' government report EVER tell the whole and complete truth about an issue. It's how they save their reputation and keep the populace calm by feeding them the most plausible set of circumstances to suspend disbelief.
It's good to be on the same side of a discussion, dk.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:21 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
All this discussion boils down to one basic thing, ignore all else.

Either:

1) Our Government both has the evil will to kill thousands of it's own people in an attempt to gain more power, regardless of how much the Government has extended it's power in peacetime. Also, is capable of keeping such an outlandish and massive plot secret when we've never kept succeeded anything secret, let alone anything this bad.

2) The story is true, there are pissed off Muslims out there who wish to kill us and sometimes succeed.

You can point out the sideline points all you want, but these tidbits of trivia do not erase this massive either/or. Sorry Host, I know what I know and you believe what you believe and do not want to look at the evidence.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:26 PM   #21 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
I do not have confidence in the official 9/11 report because it's scope was purposely limited by the administration.
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
Elphaba is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:05 PM   #22 (permalink)
Mine is an evil laugh
 
spindles's Avatar
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
I think that governments and especially 'intelligence' groups have a very fine line to tread, in that if they start announcing to the whole world that there is a credible threat of X, then the possibility of that specific incident occurring is minimised, but it does not necessarily help them to catch the perpetrators of that future event and actually leaves them free to plot threat Y. It also has the possibility of causing
a) panic
b) cry wolf syndrome (i.e. people start ignoring the warnings).

Having said all that, I agree with whoever above said governments by and large will hide facts that paint them in a bad light, even going so far as lying to deflect criticism. This is (unfortunately) a failing of democracy, in that elected officials are working to get themselves re-elected. They will also take advantage of any situation to push their own agendas.

I suspect that there is a bit of both items above and I'd bet (especially in the first instance), that the intelligence agencies have a lot of tough decisions to make and generally try to do what they think best. Maybe this is me being naive, but I'd like to think that by and large people are not all 'me me me' focused. I also think that Intelligence agencies have to work without too much interference.
__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?
spindles is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:06 PM   #23 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
This is not a mystery.
Usama bin Laden has admitted, no bragged, on several occasions, that he is responsible for 9-11.

The U.S. government, going back at least to 1993, failed to cap this guy, even after he publicly declared war on the United States. The U.S. government is incompetent--big fucking surprise--but there was no government conspiracy on 9-11. So incompetent is the U.S. government that there's not a single chance in hell that they could pull off something of this magnitude without the entire Western world reading about it in big fucking red blinking lights on Broadway.

Do we have all the information known by the government about 9-11? Probably not. Hell, the government doesn't even know what it knows and doesn't know.

I've lived long enough to see this whole sorry cycle repeat itself half a dozen times: first there's tragedy, then unity, then recrimination, and finally conspiracy theory centered around government duplicity. Going back to World War II-- the British left was sure the U.S. Army was amassing on their fair island to reinstate the monarchy. Meanwhile, the American right was saying FDR allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

We swallow elephants whole, but choke on fern seeds.
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:10 PM   #24 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
This is not a mystery.
Usama bin Laden has admitted, no bragged, on several occasions, that he is responsible for 9-11.
Nope. Totally untrue.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:12 PM   #25 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Nope. Totally untrue.
Yes. Totally true. Nanna nanna boo boo!
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:35 PM   #26 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
Yes. Totally true. Nanna nanna boo boo!
Osama Bin Laden has never once taken responsibility for 9/11. All he has done is given much praise and commendation for those responsible.

Last edited by Willravel; 01-02-2008 at 06:04 PM.. Reason: removed unnecessary quip
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:50 PM   #27 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
well, what i for one didnt know until this afternoon is that the interrogations in question involve at least two of "senior operatives" who were central (among the pool of 118) sources that the administration--then the 9/11 commission--relied on to link al qaeda to the attacks.

this edito from today's ny times makes the case:

Quote:
Stonewalled by the C.I.A.
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON

Washington

MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.

The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.

When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been contained in such videotapes.

The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees were treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then destroyed.

The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific questions, they would do all they could to answer them.

So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.

The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.

In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.
now the reasons for this have surfaced over the past days: the cia--or folk within the cia--thought that the interrogation techniques were torture-y or torture-ish, but not torture, but close enough to torture than an "uninformed" viewer, not familiar with the working distinction between torture-y or torture-ish actions and torture would "confuse" what they were watching with torture.

now there are all kinds of problems generated by this action on the part of the cia. and there is another riot of problems generated by the cia reliance on torture-y or torture-ish interrogation techniques. and there is a third set of problems to do with obstruction of an investigation. and another set of problems still created by how this cluster of other problems looks.

i mean, it doesn't matter how rabid a bushfan you might be, you still have to admit this this doesn't look good.

but in a way it's *because* i personally would be inclined to see these problems as fitting together that i am trying not to do it, simply because the case that one can make of all this stuff remains circumstantial so far.

it seems to me that the next step would probably have to be to look at the 9/11 commission report and work out the role of these "interrogations" in establishing the administration's case first that the commission's findings second. what you could do by way of this would be a function of the sourcing protocols in the report itself---and if these torture-ish or torture-like interrogtions happened at the bottom of the bush people's black hole of secrecy, i hardly think it's going to turn up as a citation in the public version of the report.

but hey, who knows? anyone done the legwork required to make this tighter? or are we stuck in a sense because we are "the public"--you know the ones who allegedly have sovereignty in a "democracy" but who are also not privy to adequate information for making any meaningful decisions---you know how it goes: you live in it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 06:25 PM   #28 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Osama Bin Laden has never once taken responsibility for 9/11. All he has done is given much praise and commendation for those responsible.

But hey, why pay attention to facts? It's not like Americans need facts about... well anything.
Ah...tfp website is accessible again. There was some kind of a backbone problem on the internet path (ashland, va) that my provider routes requests for tfproject.org through.....

I DON'T want this thread to go in this direction, but I'll back up what willravel posted because it seems to be part of the actual record:

You can visit these three locations to find more on the contention that bin Laden has never been officially declared personally responsible for planning or executing the 9/11 attacks:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13664.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082700687.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=224
Since you mentioned it, here's a rehash of links to media coverage of 9/11
including an interesting admission about the alleged 9/11 hijackers by FBI
director Mueller....they left no paper trail ! The 9/11 Commission determined
that Osama Bin Laden did not fund the 9/11 attacks. What do we really know ?
roachboy...responding to your post (#12):
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
so wait....before the snarkiness mounts...

the op seems to hinge on a linkage between the destroyed interrogation tapes and 9/11 attacks....i dont really see the linkage--the case in the op seems circumstantial, so that IF you were inclined to doubt the official line a priori, you COULD fit the tapes into it---but that presupposes an inclination to doubt a priori.

how would you argue to someone who is NOT inclined to doubt the official story that there are grounds TO doubt it?

in other words, i think the op presupposes what it could (or should, depending on your view of such things) argue directly.

the older threads on this have been mostly in paranoia...i suspect that folk have read through some of that stuff at least, so i'm NOT asking for a plot summary---just the argument, please.
I created this thread because this is not the first instance that the 9/11 Commission leaders complained of false testimony and withholding of evidence by the white house and other officials, but in the op-ed published in the Times today. they stated:
<i>"There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. -- <h3>or the White House</h3> -- of the commission's interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations."</i>

Consider that they accused NORAD officials of false testimony, back in 2004, agreed to let the DOD and FAA investigate whether crimes were committed relating to that testimony, and that the Inspectors General in both agencies conducted white wash investigations, and that the DOD hid it's report for more than a year after it was completed, it saw the light of day only after a long ignored FOIA request was responded to, and that the promised second phase of the DOD report that was claimed to "exonerate" NORAD officials involved, was not released....it's 17 months since the DOD IG promised to release it "soon", and 41 months since the 9/11 Commissioners assigned the investigation to the DOD IG, instead of in a criminal complaint to the DOJ.

The 9/11 Commissioners also claimed, even though they had asked, that they were never told by anyone in the president's administration, of a July 10, 2001 briefing of then National Security Advisor, Condie Rice by George Tenet of, <i>"about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and failed to persuade her to take action."</i>

I posted much other info in the OP that indicates there was an intention to mislead the American people about what the president knew and when he knew it, with regard to the 9/11 attacks.

I seek one thing only, with this thread. <h3>A consensus of the members on whether, it is, or isn't REASONABLE to believe that the US leadership misled us about what happened on the morning of 9/11, and about what they knew in advance, and when they knew it.</h3>

Here's one more example that concerns me greatly:
President Meets with Displaced Workers in Florida Town Hall Meeting
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...011204-17.html

"Q Hi, Mr. President. I want to say, they haven't won. I got in my car today, and I'm in the same building with you, speaking to you. They have not won.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
Q And would you say hello to my son Jordan, and my daughter Patricia.
THE PRESIDENT: Jordan and who?
Q Patricia.
THE PRESIDENT: Hi, Patricia; how are you? How old is Patricia?
Q Five, and Jordan is in 3rd grade. And Jordan has a question, if I could
give him the microphone.
THE PRESIDENT: You bet. Your mother is relaying the Mike to you, Jordan.
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for
this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard
about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. <b>I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on.</b> And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. <b>And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."</b> And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America. (Applause.
<b>The POTUS does not [sit] outside the classroom "waiting to go in..."</b>, he does not "wait" for anyone....they wait for him. An especially odd statement, considering that "this" president is always first through the door; there is a recent news photo of him jumping ahead of Vincente Fox, and he tried to muscle his way ahead of Clinton, throught the doorway at the Clinton Presidential library, on the day of it's dedication.

There was no "TV" that "was obviously on", in the "hallway" that Bush was not "waiting in", and there was no broadcast, at the time that he stated, that televised what he told the child at the December, 2001 town meeting, the he, Bush, could have watched to see the airliner crash into WTC1....

....and a month later, Bush repeated this impossible to believe (IMO) "story":
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020105-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<b>January 5, 2002

President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California </b>

......THE PRESIDENT:......Go ahead and yell it out. If I don't like the question, I'll just change it. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, I'm a Navy chaplain, serving with the Marines in 29 Palms, California. I am also honored to have you as my Commander-in-Chief.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.)

Q My question is very simple: How can we, as pastors, pray specifically for you and your family? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first -- thank you. I have -- first of all, I believe in the power of prayer. (Applause.) And I have felt the prayers of the American people for me and my family. I have. And I want to thank all of you who have prayed. People say, well, how do you know? I say, well, I can just feel it. I can't describe it very well, but I feel comforted by the prayer.

I think the thing that -- the prayer that I would like America is to ask for is to pray for God's protection for our land and our people, to pray against -- that there's a shield of protection, so that if the evil ones try to hit us again, that we've done everything we can, physically, and that there is a spiritual shield that protects the country. (Applause.)

Do you have a question. Come on underneath. The man's got a question.

Q First of all, I'm very impressed in how you handled the situation on September 11th. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's plenty. (Applause.) No. Thank you.

<b>Q What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?</b>

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- <b>well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway,</b> I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought. But I made up my mind that if America was under attack, we'd get them. (Applause.) I wasn't interested in lawyers, I wasn't interested in a bunch of debate. I was interested in finding out who did it and bringing them to justice. I also knew that they would try to hide, and anybody who provided haven, help, food, would be held accountable by the United States of America. (Applause.)

Anyway, it was an interesting day.......
He told the same bullshit account, twice to the public. It could not have happened the way he said it did....he was specific in his details, and he told the same story about "watching TV while waiting to go into the classroom", not once, but twice. It's still on the white house website, it contradicts relevant details if a major historic event....the seminal event of the man's presidency.

The effect of all of this, and today's op-ed by the chairman and co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission are just more of a long sequence of anecdotes, is to raise reaonable doubts that could be erased with frank communication to us, "the people", but there has been a total refusal to do so, even to members of the 9/11 Commission, itself.

Couple all of this with the question, "what have they been right about"?...In all of their military and security responses to the 9/11 attacks?

They should be "trying harder" to restore and maintain their own credibility, with us. They're not. Some of us demand that they attempt to do so, and some are continued defenders, apologists, "explainers". of the inexplicable.

Go figure.....

Last edited by host; 01-02-2008 at 06:35 PM..
host is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 06:33 PM   #29 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Osama Bin Laden has never once taken responsibility for 9/11. All he has done is given much praise and commendation for those responsible.
A simple googling reveals the truth of the matter:

Bin Laden: Moussaoui Not Linked to 9/11
By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF, Associated Press Writer

Tue May 23, 5:34 PM


CAIRO, Egypt - Osama bin Laden purportedly said in an audio tape Tuesday that Zacarias Moussaoui _ the only person convicted in the U.S. for the Sept. 11 attacks _ had nothing to do with the operation.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet.

"I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.

The al-Qaida chief said the Sept. 11 hijackers were divided into two groups, "pilots and assistants."

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added.

Read the complete article here: http://www.comcast.net/news/internat...ookieattempt=1

Then there's this:
Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/..._10-29-04.html)

And this from one of bin laden's flunkies:
"Al-Qa'ida takes pride in that, on September 11, it destroyed the elements of America's strategic defense, which the former U.S.S.R. and every other hostile state could not harm. These elements are: early warning, preventive strike, and the principle of deterrence."
(http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cg...=sd&ID=SP34402)

And this from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad:
“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z.”
(http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=32456)

Reuters reports his admission here:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...BrandChannel=0

"The events of Manhattan were retaliation against the American-Israeli alliance's aggression against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, and I am the only one responsible for it. The Afghan people and government knew nothing about it. America knows that," the al-Qaida leader said.
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Last edited by Aladdin Sane; 01-02-2008 at 06:40 PM..
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 06:44 PM   #30 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
personally, i dont doubt that there are statements from bin laden, but i would see them as taking advantage of free and available publicity.
put yourself in his position, and you'd probably do the same thing, say the same thing, no matter if it's based on fact or based on a desire to take advantage of cheap and easy pr.

not much different from saying that you worship cthulu, really.

so given that there's even less reason to trust what bin laden said than there is to trust what the bush administration says (no need to go into this...it's all obvious) then what would maybe be good would be to see what the demonstration is that al qaeda IN FACT had something to do with the attacks.

that you, aladdin, THINK that the statements of bin laden are reliable--even though in almost any other context, you'd probably be among the first to say that statements from him were the opposite--really doesn't mean much in the larger scheme of things. but i digress.

thanks for the info, host, but i'm still stuck on the linkage between who these interrogations involved and the conclusions of the 9/11 commission.
so far the story hasn't really broached this level of (potential) problem---the kean edito simply argues for obstruction and drops a few interesting facts along the way--but given that the aim of the edito is to argue obstruction and not to raise questions about the commission report itself--at least not at this point---there's neither any reason to have gone further nor is there any disappointed expectation floating about in the fact that it stopped where it did.

i think it would matter, and matter quite alot, if the infotainment the commission used for the report was in part or as a whole extracted under torture, wouldn't you?

it seems to me that this is the direction indicated by the information here and elsewhere about the linkage of the cia tape destruction and the 9/11 report.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 01-02-2008 at 06:46 PM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:19 PM   #31 (permalink)
Here
 
World's King's Avatar
 
Location: Denver City Denver
Wow.


This thread got annoying really fast.
__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown
World's King is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:32 PM   #32 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
What a useless bunch of fucking shit.

Take this vomit back to Politics before it pollutes the whole board.

Who is the mod of this goddamned place?
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:34 PM   #33 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
....i think it would matter, and matter quite alot, if the infotainment the commission used for the report was in part or as a whole extracted under torture, wouldn't you?

it seems to me that this is the direction indicated by the information here and elsewhere about the linkage of the cia tape destruction and the 9/11 report.
Never as simple as it seems....the 2003 Time piece can be interwoven with the comments in Kean and Hamilton's current op-ed:

Quote:

...Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then destroyed.

The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific questions, they would do all they could to answer them.

So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.

The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.

In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report....

From Page 146- http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-163.html

Detainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al
Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowl-
edge of the 9/11 plot.
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies
of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been
limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications
received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place.
We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no con-
trol over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would
be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we
could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambigui-
ties in the reporting.We were told that our requests might disrupt the
sensitive interrogation process.
We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured
9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report.We have evalu-
ated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them
with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate
where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative.We have
been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody
has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...480240,00.html
NEW BOOK SAYS ABU ZUBAYDAH HAS MADE STARTLING REVELATIONS ABOUT SECRET CONNECTIONS LINKING SAUDI ARABIA, PAKISTAN AND OSAMA BIN LADEN
Sunday, Aug. 31, 2003

....Posner elaborates in startling detail how U.S. interrogators used drugs - an unnamed "quick-on, quick-off" painkiller and Sodium Pentothal, the old movie truth serum - in a chemical version of reward and punishment to make Zubaydah talk. When questioning stalled, according to Posner, CIA men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.

Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do."The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002). To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. When the fake inquisitors accused Zubaydah of lying, he responded with a 10-minute monologue laying out the Saudi-Pakistani-Osama triangle, according to the book.

Zubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom�s longtime intelligence chief. Zubaydah said bin Laden "personally" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom. The Pakistani contact, high - ranking air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir, entered the equation, Zubaydah said, at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan also attended by Zubaydah. Bin Laden struck a deal with Mir, then in the military but tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan�s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to get protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaeda. Zubaydah told interrogators bin Laden said the arrangement was "blessed by the Saudis," according to Posner.

Zubaydah said he attended a third meeting in Kandahar in 1998 with Turki, senior ISI agents and Taliban officials. There Turki promised, writes Posner, that "more Saudi aid would flow to the Taliban, and the Saudis would never ask for bin Laden�s extradition, so long as al-Qaeda kept its long-standing promise to direct fundamentalism away from the kingdom." In Posner�s stark judgment, the Saudis "effectively had (bin Laden) on their payroll since the start of the decade." Abu Zubaydah told the interrogators that the Saudis regularly sent the funds through three royal-prince intermediaries he named, according to the book.

The last eight paragraphs of the book set up a final startling development, McGeary writes. Those three Saudi princes all perished within days of one another. On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed was felled by a heart attack at age 43. One day later Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, was killed in what was called a high-speed car accident. The last member of the trio, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, officially "died of thirst" while traveling east of Riyadh one week later. And seven months after that, Mushaf Ali Mir, by then Pakistan�s Air Marshal, perished in a plane crash in clear weather over the unruly North-West Frontier Province, along with his wife and closest confidants, Posner writes.

Without charging any skulduggery (Posner told TIME they "may in fact be coincidences"), the author notes that these deaths occurred after CIA officials passed along Zubaydah�s accusations to Riyadh and Islamabad. Washington, reports Posner, was shocked when Zubaydah claimed that �9/11 changed nothing� about the clandestine marriage of terrorism and Saudi and Pakistani interests, "because both Prince Ahmed and Mir knew that an attack was scheduled for American soil on that day." They couldn�t stop it or warn the U.S. in advance, Zubaydah said, because they didn�t know what or where the attack would be. And they couldn�t turn on bin Laden afterward because he could expose their prior knowledge. Both capitals swiftly assured Washington that "they had thoroughly investigated the claims and they were false and malicious." The Bush Administration, writes Posner, decided that "creating an international incident and straining relations with those regional allies when they were critical to the war in Afghanistan and the buildup for possible war with Iraq, was out of the question."

The book seems certain to kick up a political and diplomatic firestorm, McGeary writes. The first question everyone will ask is, Is it true? And many will wonder if these matters were addressed in the 28 pages censored from Washington�s official report on 9/11. It has long been suggested that Saudi Arabia probably had some kind of secret arrangement to stave off fundamentalists within the kingdom. But, McGeary writes, this appears to be the first description of a repeated, explicit quid pro quo between bin Laden and a Saudi official. Posner told TIME he got the details of Zubaydah�s interrogation and revelations from a U.S. official outside the CIA at a "very senior Executive Branch level" whose name we would probably know if he told it to us, McGeary writes. He did not. The second source, Posner said, was from the CIA, and he gave what Posner viewed as general confirmation of the story but did not repeat the details. There are top Bush Administration officials who have long taken a hostile view of Saudi behavior regarding terrorism and might want to leak Zubaydah�s claims. Prince Turki, now Saudi Arabia�s ambassador to Britain, did not respond to Posner�s letters and faxes.

Finally, the details of Zubaydah�s drug-induced confessions might bring on charges that the U.S. is using torture on terror suspects. According to Posner, the Administration decided shortly after 9/11 to permit the use of Sodium Pentothal on prisoners. The Administration, he writes, "privately believes that the Supreme Court has implicitly approved using such drugs in matters where public safety is at risk," citing a 1963 opinion.
My ambition is only to find a consensus among our members on what is reasonable to think in reaction to six years of official "spin".
host is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:40 PM   #34 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
My ambition is only to find a consensus among our members on what is reasonable to think in reaction to six years of official "spin".
Bullshit.

I'm gone.
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:41 PM   #35 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=1009

One of the best episodes ever, minus the Hardily boys, full episode if you never saw it.


Kyle: Will you shut up about 9/11!
Cartman: Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?!
Kyle: Because anybody who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy is a retard!
Cartman: Oh really? Well did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?
Kyle: Yes. I'm saying one-fourth of Americans are retards.
Stan: Yeah, at least one-fourth.
Kyle: Let's take a test sample: There's four of us, you're a retard, that's one-fourth.
Cartman: ...There are soo many people who know the truth, Kyle. Uh Butters! [sees Butters walking towards the group]
Butters: Hey, fellas!
Cartman: Butters, do you think 9/11 was just a plot by some angry terrorists, or do you think there was some kind of coverup?
Butters: Well, I heard that 9/11 was caused by President Bush.
Cartman: Aha! Do you see?
Kyle: Where did you hear that??
Butters: [points] From Eric.
Cartman: I rest my case.
Kyle: [walks up and stands next to Butters] Butters, you don't really believe that, do you?
Butters: Well, l-uh, I mean, uu, you never know. Uh the government does some pretty spooky things. The government and the corporations headed by the Jews that tear down 9/11.
Cartman: That's right, Butters.
Kyle: Goddamnit, you see what happens when you spread this stupid crap, fatass?!
Cartman: What?! People see the truth?!
Butters: Can I go now?
Cartman: You guys are blind!! I can't believe that everyone here is just buying into what they're told by the media! [begins to move away from the boys] I'm gonna go find out the truth. I'm gonna blow the lid off this whooole 9/11 conspiracy once and for all! [goes around a corner and disappears]

.....

Bush: Boys, you don't understand. People need to think we are all-powerful. That we control the world. If they know we weren't in charge of 9/11 then... we appear to control nothing.
Kyle: Well why don't you just tell people the truth?!
Bush: We do that too. And most people believe the truth. But one fourth of the population is retarded. If they wanna believe we control everything with intricate plans, why not let them?

........

Kyle: So then, who was responsible for 9/11?
Stan: Whattaya mean? A bunch of pissed-off Muslims.
Frank: [giggles] Yeah. What are you, retarded? [The President and his staff laugh heartily]
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:52 PM   #36 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
Bin Laden: Moussaoui Not Linked to 9/11
By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF, Associated Press Writer

Tue May 23, 5:34 PM

CAIRO, Egypt - Osama bin Laden purportedly said in an audio tape Tuesday that Zacarias Moussaoui _ the only person convicted in the U.S. for the Sept. 11 attacks _ had nothing to do with the operation.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet.

"I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.

The al-Qaida chief said the Sept. 11 hijackers were divided into two groups, "pilots and assistants."

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added.

Read the complete article here: http://www.comcast.net/news/internat...ookieattempt=1
I'm familiar with the planning process ≠ I planned 9/11. Jesus, I know a ton about the supposed planning process. Am I responsible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
Then there's this:
Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/..._10-29-04.html)
Of the many plans to attack the US, attacking the twin towers was one ≠ I planned 9/11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
And this from one of bin laden's flunkies:
"Al-Qa'ida takes pride in that, on September 11, it destroyed the
I guess I can skip these since I never mentioned "flunkies".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
What a useless bunch of fucking shit.

Take this vomit back to Politics before it pollutes the whole board.

Who is the mod of this goddamned place?
Curse aimlessly and then insult the moderators. You're kinda on a roll.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:58 PM   #37 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I'm familiar with the planning process ≠ I planned 9/11. Jesus, I know a ton about the supposed planning process. Am I responsible?

Of the many plans to attack the US, attacking the twin towers was one ≠ I planned 9/11.

I guess I can skip these since I never mentioned "flunkies".

Curse aimlessly and then insult the moderators. You're kinda on a roll.
And you are the reason all but a few members venture into Politics. Now you bring your obnoxious, egotistical behavior to General Discussion. It should not be allowed.
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 08:04 PM   #38 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
And you are the reason all but a few members venture into Politics. Now you bring your obnoxious, egotistical behavior to General Discussion. It should not be allowed.
I like how the guy that's cursing aimlessly and mocking the moderators gets to go around calling people obnoxious. Get a mirror and then remind yourself that you're not in charge around here so maybe it's time to take a deep breath, stop telling people what should or should not be allowed, and either:
1) Continue to post in a thread that obviously infuriates you, end every post with "I'm out", and then come back for more and dig yourself a deeper hole by cursing people out, or
2) Go enjoy the plethora of other threads. Remember, in the rules, it says "if you can't say something nice, hit the back button" (paraphrasing).

I'd recommend 2, as it's better for your blood pressure (and maybe your keyboard?).
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 08:09 PM   #39 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I like how the guy that's cursing aimlessly and mocking the moderators gets to go around calling people obnoxious. Get a mirror and then remind yourself that you're not in charge around here so maybe it's time to take a deep breath, stop telling people what should or should not be allowed, and either:
1) Continue to post in a thread that obviously infuriates you, end every post with "I'm out", and then come back for more and dig yourself a deeper hole by cursing people out, or
2) Go enjoy the plethora of other threads. Remember, in the rules, it says "if you can't say something nice, hit the back button" (paraphrasing).

I'd recommend 2, as it's better for your blood pressure (and maybe your keyboard?).
Yes, you are right, as usual.
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 08:10 PM   #40 (permalink)
Here
 
World's King's Avatar
 
Location: Denver City Denver
Alright. You all have had your fun.


You can't play nice. So you can't play at all.
__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown
World's King is offline  
 

Tags
9 or 11, happened, jury, members, official, tfp, version, you

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:40 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73