"Truthers", 9/11 and Operation Northwoods

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

He means the decision to invade Iraq was down to the democrats and their made up intelligence which they sent Powell to the UN with, and then it was the democrats who went ahead with their pushing on plan after the UN said "meh" and the french said "thats made up bollox not intelligence".
Get with the program kraznji and man up, the 2 wars after 9/11 are down to the democrats especially the one that had absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely connected to 9/11

Ahem, yet they still happened under Bushes watch and it was the bush adminstration who pushed for them, not that it matters - since the Dems would have done no different anyway, When it comes to the big issues like foreign policy, monetry policy, national security etc the Dems and Reps hardly differ at all.
I cant believe people still buy into these petty partisan theatrics.

Look at the 2012 election its Goldman sachs vs Goldman sachs, oh sorry I mean Romney vs Obama. kindly explain to me what is the difference? as best i can tell they agree on just about everything.
Both candiates are hollow men, serial flip-floppers who seemly dont have any conviction or a solid opinion on anything, Obama will likley win - his only real advantage being that his flip-flop track record isnt quite as long as Romney's.
America is on a fixed course and has been for well over a decade, Weather its Reps or Dems at the helm is just apples and oranges. Two wings of the same bird.

No, he doesn't mean that at all. The Clinton administration had Osama at one point but let him get away.

No, the two subsequent actions are the attempt to do Afghanistan on the cheap and the entirely unrelated waste of time in Iraq.
One can be linked as it involved trying to get to Bin Laden, but since he includes both he cannot have meant that.

[Safe-Keeper]

This has all the makings of a typical CT-er post:

• Closed mind: predetermined conviction that his claim is "the truth".
• Poisoning the well by painting anyone who challenge his view as "blind" or "narrow-minded". See above.
• The "I was a sceptic at first, too" gimmick.
• The red herring tactic: pulling in various unrelated topics as if they somehow constitute evidence of the CT claim.
• "Argument by YouTube" in place of actual discussion.
• Cherry-picking: taking quotes that seem to support the CT out of context; cherry-picking expert statements.

Originally Posted by Skybird

9/11 was the best thing that has happened to [Bush] in his whole presidency.

Firstly, one could argue that dumping such a huge crisis in the lap of an incompetent leader isn't a good thing for him. If I was in charge of something right now and felt I wasn't doing a good job, an emergency would be the last thing I wanted.

Sure, someone benefited. Someone always does, whenever something bad happens. The anti-nuclear lobby has benefitted tremendously after the tsunami hit Japan and caused one of the Fukushima reactors to melt down. But do you see anyone claiming that Greenpeace was behind the tsunami?

As you said yourself, it's not evidence. In fact, it's completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by flatsixes

I lost some friends on that day. In those buildings.
Please stop with this crap.
Thanks.

We did. All of the CT-er claims were shot down almost as soon as they were thrown out. Rational answers to every single CT-er argument are a google search away to be scrutinized by those with a true open mind. The movement has nothing new to contribute. The crap has stopped, which in a way is a detriment to the 9/11 "truth" movement. Had they had anything new to contribute in place of the same old jargon and misconceptions and lies, they'd actually serve a function.

Instead we get endless reruns, which is worse by far.

Originally Posted by Halgarre

I keep an open mind when I read and watch this stuff. Three things that does have me scratching my head.

You then proceed to ask questions that have been answered over a decade ago. So much for your "open mind".

I think of 9/11 as our generations JFK/Grassy Knoll.

I'm glad, despite your ignorance, that you're able to see this. Good on you.

[Catfish]

This is the initial post that made me search for evidence of either kind - in german :
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35438/1.html

They call it "debunking of the debunking" - there is so much desinformation by now.

[Dowly]

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4/videos

[MH]

Originally Posted by Catfish

This is the initial post that made me search for evidence of either kind - in german :
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35438/1.html

They call it "debunking of the debunking" - there is so much desinformation by now.

Read this again from end to the beginning...skip the bull part about RC planes and it will all make sense.

[Catfish]

Hello MH,

Originally Posted by MH

Read this again from end to the beginning...skip the bull part about RC planes and it will all make sense.

I guess it is more about cancelation of certain defence funding, and governmental/military shortfalls of internal security - which is why there is no further official examination, and publishing.

Greetings,
Catfish

The truth

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The truth

Well obviously! D'uh!

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"debunking of the debunking"

There is so much desinformation by now ..

Indeed it is.

And it's up to one persons to believe what they want to believe.

Me, my self have chosen to believe the official statement, thou I have difficulty to get a straight and clear answer why these 3 building had a free fall(like a demolition team had made it)

There have been made test(They had buld a three storage replica of one the twin towers), in Denmark and Sweden and they could NOT get the same result. YES they even used jetfuel. and they even let it burn for two days(Denmark)

But as stated before. If this was an inside operation, then how could they keep it a secret? It must have been hundred of people involved and when should they have got the time to install all these explosive
(Some days before the two towers was closed due to something, can't remember)

But I wait for an answer on how it could be possible to get THREE buildings to collapse as it had been done by some demolitions expert.

There's one possiblity and that is, that those building was build in a very poor standard(money under the table, to get some authorization or something in that way)

Markus