9/11: couple things to think about

[natepro]

I have already made it very clear in my op and in a recent post as to why I am mentioning mossad in this event. If you still cannot properly understand why I am singling them out, then I don't know what else to tell you.

I know why you're mentioning them. It's part of the great and grand conspiracy. Them Jews is out to get you!

How about the mossad agent himself saying they were sent there to document the event? Should that be ignored?

That is not what he said. He said they were photographing and/or video taping it to document the event, not that they were "sent there to document the event." If you think this is incriminating language, then you're simply naive. It's used in plenty of other places involve neither foreknowledge, nor Jews:

THE mushroom cloud that blew over the Japanese city of Hiroshima has remained the most enduring image of the world's first atomic attack. The scale of the devastation following the bombing meant few photographs taken on the ground to document the event have ever surfaced.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/interna...ever-1-1063836

Yesterday a small meteorite struck the back forty of PFHQ!!!

By now you may have already heard about this on CNN or MSNBC as they both sent representatives out to our little "starstruck" bit of Florida. We are quite the celebrities ... after all, how many people have meteorites strike their property?

...

I have 3 videos, that I shot yesterday. They are a little long and I apologize for the loading time, but I wanted to document the event and share it with the world.

http://pureflorida.blogspot.com/2009...=1238969280000

Unless, of course, you're going to claim that the guy in Florida had a hand in dropping that meteorite there, too.

Well, a lady said it, another man who I believe worked for that moving company said something very similar. If you believe that these seemingly two unrelated people just coincidentally reported the same thing yet have no merit, then you can believe so.

Actually, what the employee of the moving company said is that they were "joking" and said, "Now America knows what we go through." Of course, none of this demonstrates foreknowledge, either.

The only thing I have come across regarding this is that those men failed multiple polygraph tests, and some people with that moving company left the country when they saw the others apprehended.

This has nothing to do with whether or not they had foreknowledge of the attacks.

So this proves their innocence? Are you aware that the Israeli attack on the USS liberty is an event which is celebrated every year in Israel? Who's supposed to give a damn. As bin laden said in his post 9/11 interview, there is a government within the government.

You seem to be mistaken on how burden of proof works. You are the one claiming they had foreknowledge, and so you are the one with the burden of proving this to be true. The things I have pointed out do not point to any of them having foreknowledge of the attacks. The things you have pointed out, what few true things there were, do not either. Held for 71 days, investigated by the FBI and CIA, interrogated repeatedly, and ultimately released with no charges being filed... I guess it just leaves me wondering what, exactly, your evidence of their foreknowledge is.

I don't know if Israel attacked the Liberty with the knowledge that it was an American, and not an Egyptian ship, but I am not surprised you are certain in your knowledge of the situation. I've not seen anything that says they celebrate it "every year," although it is a pretty weird thing to celebrate. I do know they've publicly apologized for attacking the ship, and paid over $17MM to the U.S., the wounded men, and the families of the men that died.

But most of all, I have no idea how a ship being attacked in 1967 shows that Israel had specific foreknowledge they did not share, or in any way participated in the attacks on 9/11/2001, a good 30+ years after the Liberty attack.

[nastynice]

I know why you're mentioning them. It's part of the great and grand conspiracy. Them Jews is out to get you!

You probably need to chill with that ********

That is not what he said. He said they were photographing and/or video taping it to document the event, not that they were "sent there to document the event." If you think this is incriminating language, then you're simply naive. It's used in plenty of other places involve neither foreknowledge, nor Jews:

What I've come across is "our purpose was to document the event".

Unless, of course, you're going to claim that the guy in Florida had a hand in dropping that meteorite there, too.

That (including your quotes, which aren't showing up) is just a terrible argument. It really is. I'm pretty sure its apparent enough to the point that I don't need to expand on it. **but I guess that's what you get when you cut n paste

Actually, what the employee of the moving company said is that they were "joking" and said, "Now America knows what we go through." Of course, none of this demonstrates foreknowledge, either.

Yea, like I said, he is saying something very similar, painting a picture of the same type of basic attitude.

This has nothing to do with whether or not they had foreknowledge of the attacks.

I never said it did. You brought up them taking polygraphs and I responded that the only thing I'm seeing related to this is them failing polygraphs.

You seem to be mistaken on how burden of proof works. You are the one claiming they had foreknowledge, and so you are the one with the burden of proving this to be true. The things I have pointed out do not point to any of them having foreknowledge of the attacks. The things you have pointed out, what few true things there were, do not either. Held for 71 days, investigated by the FBI and CIA, interrogated repeatedly, and ultimately released with no charges being filed... I guess it just leaves me wondering what, exactly, your evidence of their foreknowledge is.

I don't know if Israel attacked the Liberty with the knowledge that it was an American, and not an Egyptian ship, but I am not surprised you are certain in your knowledge of the situation. I've not seen anything that says they celebrate it "every year," although it is a pretty weird thing to celebrate. I do know they've publicly apologized for attacking the ship, and paid over $17MM to the U.S., the wounded men, and the families of the men that died.

But most of all, I have no idea how a ship being attacked in 1967 shows that Israel had specific foreknowledge they did not share, or in any way participated in the attacks on 9/11/2001, a good 30+ years after the Liberty attack.

I actually do feel quite certain on my knowledge of the situation, I have seen a documentary with filmed testimony of many of the u.s. soldiers aboard that ship.

The ship being attacked does not show foreknowledge, nor did I say it did. You brought up those israelis filing a lawsuit, as though why would they want to bring up the whole situation if they're guilty. Fair question. I'm showing you that doesn't mean anything, as they have no problem bringing up the uss liberty on a yearly basis. Celebrate might be the wrong word, they have a yearly formal commemoration.

If you feel those people being held for 71 days and not having charges filed proves their innocence, then you have failed to understand some very fundamental points in my op.

[LegendX]

they have no problem bringing up the uss liberty on a yearly basis. Celebrate might be the wrong word, they have a yearly formal commemoration.

You cannot be serious.... ....I don't even need to address everything else you've said when you make such a ridiculous statement such as this. Holy ****. You really do have some abstract thinking

[Labgrownmangoat]

Love me some Zinn. But he shows how it is constant struggle to rein in big business from choking as much profit out of the little man as possible. Also shows how big business is constantly seeking control of government to max their profits and protect or gain in foreign enterprise.

CIA's back coups in south america so business could maintain their hold over their resources. Coups in Iran and Iraq, to back our's and britian's business in the oil. Harliburton making out like a fat rat in Iraq with no-bid contracts thanks to their former and now employee's Cheny.

These are the things that textbooks don't talk about as well as the false flag that got us into Vietnam.

Yes, Zinn can be a help in some conspiracy theories for the fact it highlight the connection between big business and politic. Not so much for 9/11. But I am sure the government will paint a pretty picture of themselves in history books to come. No mention how the sloppy and criminally ineptness of high officials (I will alway wonder about that sudden outbreak of wide spread ineptness that inflicted our top government officals) during the lead up to 9-11. How much will be talk about Bush's lies?

A few years back Texas was talking about cleaning up america history books, to take away the spotlight on the bad period or incidents in our history, because they believe american children should learn to admire our history, not feel leery of our country. We don't need no secret sociey to change our history, there are some politicans who are willing to do it right in front of your face.

Now to 9-11, Natepro and other constantlly said they iced all the conspiracy theories on this incident. This is only in their minds, there still engineers, learned scholars, ex-government officials,eye-witnesses, who don't believe what the government presented to the american public is the true picture. They are defending the government results, even though the government has lied, twisted the truth on many things in the past. It has showed a totally cold blooded will to take lives as well as not save lives if it would further their goals.

I am not saiding we shouldn't never believe the government, but we should always question the government, because it's run by politicans. Just listening to this past election cycle, we know politicans like to paint a picture to suit their goals and not always the truth.

Why do you think Zinn, who spent a lifetime casting a critical eye on history, has not managed to connect all the dots that you and Nastynice have? He clearly doesn't have any sacred cows, and is willing to take on any part of the established narrative, right? He clearly has a pretty comprehensive knowledge of US history, right? Is Zinn "defending the government results"? Is he a shill along with everyone else besides a tiny moon-landing-skeptics crew, the ones who really know everything?

You guys accuse the rest of the world of being gullible fools who eat up falsehoods daily. Only you and a few others have the special insight and knowledge to see the world clearly. Only you are wise and informed, in the know. Does this sound like any other group?

Better yet, your views are not susceptible to being changed by facts. Correct me if I'm wrong. If there is some fact out there that would reverse your 9-11 conspiracy belief, what is it? If not, how is this kind of non-fact-based nonsense different from a religion? (Not that I want to veer too far over into that territory, I am interested in the epistemological similarities.) Your group requires belief because it can almost never produce enough evidence to create knowledge. Conspiracy theorists pretend to ask questions for which they believe they have the answers. Here is the dirty little secret -- they almost never have real answers that stand up to rational scrutiny. It's questions all the way down, and they'll happily resort to saying so each time the "answers" the provide are refuted with hard facts.

Are there exceptions over the course of history? Sure. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. You know the difference between those exceptions and 99% of conspiracy theories? There is enough evidence to support them. See the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the prime example of something that began as a conspiracy but is now textbook history. Why isn't a fictionalized moon landing, or the Illuminati or the fiendish fluoridators conspiracy accepted as textbook history? For the simple reason that there is not enough evidence to convince reasonable people they are true.

[FlakeyFool]

Youre really insightful

[nastynice]

Why do you think Zinn, who spent a lifetime casting a critical eye on history, has not managed to connect all the dots that you and Nastynice have?

I am definitely making assertions regarding 9/11, I'm pointing out inconsistencies which suggest there's something more to 9/11 than what we've been told, if you feel them to be weak, thats fine. However, you do realize the entire historical picture I have painted is not about connecting the dots as much as it is just noticing a pattern. Its all pretty straight forward stuff that I laid out, which to my knowledge doesn't even have another side (of the story) to it.

[nastynice]

You cannot be serious.... ....I don't even need to address everything else you've said when you make such a ridiculous statement such as this. Holy ****. You really do have some abstract thinking

You know what, I'm wrong. It has to do with lavon affair instead, similar situation. And its not a yearly basis, but there was some type of formal commemoration held for them.

[natepro]

You probably need to chill with that ********

Yeah. I'm the one that needs to chill with it. Okay.

What I've come across is "our purpose was to document the event".

Right. That was their purpose in taking pictures and video. That was the same purpose everyone that pointed a camera at the Towers had. This statement still does not demonstrate foreknowledge.

That (including your quotes, which aren't showing up) is just a terrible argument. It really is. I'm pretty sure its apparent enough to the point that I don't need to expand on it. **but I guess that's what you get when you cut n paste

The fact that other people use the same phrase, when it's clear they have no foreknowledge of the event, is anything but a terrible argument. I also don't know what you mean when you say the quotes aren't showing up. Both links still work for me.

Yea, like I said, he is saying something very similar, painting a picture of the same type of basic attitude.

"Joking" and "Now American knows what we go through" are not the same as celebrating. So, no.

I never said it did. You brought up them taking polygraphs and I responded that the only thing I'm seeing related to this is them failing polygraphs.

You brought up the celebrating Israelis, not me.

Because not every other intelligence agency was seen celebrating and video taping the plane crash. Not every other intelligence agency said their mission was to document the events of 9/11. Not every other intelligence agency was in possession of white vans, fake passports, and box cutter knives.

Remember? This was the reason you gave for not mentioning all the other national intelligence agencies that gave warnings to the US. And they're all turning out to be piss poor reasons.

I actually do feel quite certain on my knowledge of the situation, I have seen a documentary with filmed testimony of many of the u.s. soldiers aboard that ship.

A documentary that doesn't include intercepts by the NSA and quotes by Isralies is not that great of a documentary, I'd say.

The ship being attacked does not show foreknowledge, nor did I say it did. You brought up those israelis filing a lawsuit, as though why would they want to bring up the whole situation if they're guilty. Fair question. I'm showing you that doesn't mean anything, as they have no problem bringing up the uss liberty on a yearly basis. Celebrate might be the wrong word, they have a yearly formal commemoration.

There's no real reason to respond to this, given your last quote down below. As such, my point still stands. Also, filing a lawsuit in US Courts is not the same as any kind of celebration or commemoration. One of them prompts further investigation into an event, the other does not. I assume I don't need to say which is which.

If you feel those people being held for 71 days and not having charges filed proves their innocence, then you have failed to understand some very fundamental points in my op.

You said this literally while quoting a post where I told you the burden of proof is not on me. That's just kind of sad.

You know what, I'm wrong. It has to do with lavon affair instead, similar situation. And its not a yearly basis, but there was some type of formal commemoration held for them.

Mmhmm.

[Labgrownmangoat]

I am definitely making assertions regarding 9/11, I'm pointing out inconsistencies which suggest there's something more to 9/11 than what we've been told, if you feel them to be weak, thats fine. However, you do realize the entire historical picture I have painted is not about connecting the dots as much as it is just noticing a pattern. Its all pretty straight forward stuff that I laid out, which to my knowledge doesn't even have another side (of the story) to it.

Your piece was about creating rather than recognizing a pattern.

Is there any fact, any piece of evidence, or set of pieces of evidence, that could convince you that your belief in a 9-11 conspiracy is mistaken? If so, what?

[nastynice]

Right. That was their purpose in taking pictures and video. That was the same purpose everyone that pointed a camera at the Towers had. This statement still does not demonstrate foreknowledge.

Ok. I see what's going on here. You are interpreting that statement to be about strictly them taking pictures, whereas I am interpreting to be more about the big picture as to what they were doing.

"Joking" and "Now American knows what we go through" are not the same as celebrating. So, no.

A joking attitude, celebrating, laughing, high fiving, I'm saying its all pointing to a similar attitude, a similar mind frame. One which is very out of the ordinary compared to everyone around them.

Regarding these celebrating Israeli's, I also want you to think about something. Think about how little media coverage this story got. Let's say even, you are 100% correct and the whole situation was just a coincidence. STILL, think about how little media coverage this story got. Now imagine if everything about the story was the same, except it was arab spies who were caught doing the same thing. Ask yourself honestly how much media coverage do you think the story would have gotten then? These are important ideas which I am trying to get across, but you must be able to answer it and understand it on your own, me repeating the same stuff at this point makes no difference.

You said this literally while quoting a post where I told you the burden of proof is not on me. That's just kind of sad.

I will repeat again, if you feel those people being held for 71 days and not having charges filed proves their innocence, then you have failed to understand some very fundamental points in my op. Instead of worrying about how to retaliate to this statement, try and take a moment to think about what I just said.

Mmhmm.

See what I did there? You should try it some time. Matter of fact, the opportunity has presented itself in this very thread. Go for it.

[nastynice]

Your piece was about creating rather than recognizing a pattern.

Perhaps. However, the facts remain.

Is there any fact, any piece of evidence, or set of pieces of evidence, that could convince you that your belief in a 9-11 conspiracy is mistaken? If so, what?

I don't know, what has happened has happened. The events, the red flags, the way things fell into place, they all happened as such. I did not believe the gov't could have possibly had a hand in this event when it first happened, however my view changed after realizing and noticing certain things. So I don't see why I would not be open to changing my view again. As far as WHAT, I can't say, I'm just seeing whatever there is to see, whatever comes up comes up, whatever doesn't doesn't.

[natepro]

Ok. I see what's going on here. You are interpreting that statement to be about strictly them taking pictures, whereas I am interpreting to be more about the big picture as to what they were doing.

Which is, of course, an absurd thing to do. Why would they randomly admit their entire, big picture purpose for being in the country to a random street cop that stopped them, and then deny it once interrogated by the FBI and CIA, to the point that they could prove nothing and had to release them? It makes no sense.

A joking attitude, celebrating, laughing, high fiving, I'm saying its all pointing to a similar attitude, a similar mind frame. One which is very out of the ordinary compared to everyone around them.

Regarding these celebrating Israeli's, I also want you to think about something. Think about how little media coverage this story got. Let's say even, you are 100% correct and the whole situation was just a coincidence. STILL, think about how little media coverage this story got. Now imagine if everything about the story was the same, except it was arab spies who were caught doing the same thing. Ask yourself honestly how much media coverage do you think the story would have gotten then? These are important ideas which I am trying to get across, but you must be able to answer it and understand it on your own, me repeating the same stuff at this point makes no difference.

This is nonsense conjecture. If they were German spies it would have had no more media exposure than it did. The same if they were French or British or Spanish. The fact that they were Israeli just gives people license to make more Zionist conspiracies.

But I hope we're not pretending this got no media coverage. I'll point you back to the 20/20 transcript to show that idea isn't true.

I will repeat again, if you feel those people being held for 71 days and not having charges filed proves their innocence, then you have failed to understand some very fundamental points in my op. Instead of worrying about how to retaliate to this statement, try and take a moment to think about what I just said.

Oh for ****'s sake. I am not the one saying they were spies that knew this was going to happen and their purpose was to document it happening. I am not the one with the burden of proving that. I am the one that keeps talking to someone that apparently doesn't understand how a burden of proof works. I hope I don't have to say this for a fourth time.

See what I did there? You should try it some time. Matter of fact, the opportunity has presented itself in this very thread. Go for it.

Be wrong? No thanks.

[nastynice]

Which is, of course, an absurd thing to do. Why would they randomly admit their entire, big picture purpose for being in the country to a random street cop that stopped them, and then deny it once interrogated by the FBI and CIA, to the point that they could prove nothing and had to release them? It makes no sense.

Because when you listen to that statement in its entire context, my interpretation seems to be the correct one. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe I can enter that man's mind and tell you.

This is nonsense conjecture. If they were German spies it would have had no more media exposure than it did. The same if they were French or British or Spanish. The fact that they were Israeli just gives people license to make more Zionist conspiracies.

But I hope we're not pretending this got no media coverage. I'll point you back to the 20/20 transcript to show that idea isn't true.

First off, I am speaking of the AMOUNT of coverage it got.

I would love to see it in the abc.com archives. From what I remember, I read this story there about a week after it first aired, as I didn't believe my friend when he told me about it. Mysteriously, about a month later, it was just nowhere to be found. This was my personal experience. From what I have READ, fox did the same type of thing regarding the other white van on 9/11.

Get it?

Oh for ****'s sake. I am not the one saying they were spies that knew this was going to happen and their purpose was to document it happening. I am not the one with the burden of proving that. I am the one that keeps talking to someone that apparently doesn't understand how a burden of proof works. I hope I don't have to say this for a fourth time.

We're obviously on just two different wavelengths. Our minds work in very different fashions, and what I have posed in this thread is just obviously not something you're wired to understand. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, who knows

Be wrong? No thanks.

haha, that's you in a nutshell right there. It truly is.

[nastynice]

Agree. Nastynice only flaw is not knowing when he is wasting his time and energy on those who wish to believe in the pollyanna version of history taught in our schools.

You really hit the nail on the head. You are a wise man, sir.

Somehow nate drags me into these bs back and forths, I just keep getting suckered into them.

[Angry Norwegian]

My mind's just on a different level man. Dude, our minds our like working different ways bro. Yo, I'm like Drose top 10 in my law school class cuz my mind is so ****ing on this level, you know what I'm saying?

People who wish to not believe everything I say are just believing the wrong version of sheep history, taught by schools. I never went to those, I knew from the start that my mind is just wise in other ways, brother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LsCAjI4mu4