Hey DrewBedson You pretty much destroyed your credibility by your tap dancing around the issue instead of addressing it back in your posts #26, #28, #30, and #32 but I'll ask you to address another issue anyway. Look at this excerpt from this post. http://www.flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=12196&start=0 (excerpt) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Listen to these two speeches of Hitler's. https://www.youtube.com/results?sea...s+Reasons+For+Invading+The+Soviet+Union&sm=12 Watch the above speech here without having to log in. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0a0_1301486247 https://www.youtube.com/results?sea...r:+Explains+Reasons+For+Invading+Poland&sm=12 He may have been lyiing to the German people and soldiers but at least we know what they were thinking as the German army invaded Poland and Russia. Americans are taught that Hitler said to the German people, "We should invade eastern Europe to expand German territory" and the German people said, "Good idea, let's do it". The German people and soldiers believed (perhaps wrongly) they were righting old wrongs and defending their territory. That is one confirmed lie that the American government tells the American people. Does that make you a little suspicious? If there's one lie, there may be others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That the US government lied about what the German soldiers and people were thinking during WWII is a confirmed fact clear to anyone who takes the time to listen to those two speeches of Hitler's. You keep insisting that official sources are credible. I say the above is clear proof that they're not credible. Please comment on this.
Be happy to once you make a contention, provide a quote from an article that is reliable and credible and provide a link to same to view for context. Sorry, but I don't chase random links on other forums or posts so if they are credible to your contention they should be here. Oh, if you're going to use youtube please provide proof of the video's factual credentials as well as those of the person who made it. Then feel free to wuote the portion which supports your point and tell me at what point in the timeline I may find it to check for accuracy and context. If you do this I am more than willing to look at any video you post in a discussion. As it is, telling me to run off and look at this and that is a wasted of our time. If there is something there explain it, quote it, tell me exactly where to find it and show how reliable and accurate the author of the video is so we can gage it's worth as a source.
Hey l4zarus, WittySocrates, and Soupnazi... What do you think of DrewBedson's response to post #54? I'd also like to hear your responses to the issue I raised in post #54.
Because Jones et al have made such a big deal about "agents" etc being after them for being "on to something". Anyone really that worried, wouldn't go out of their way to advertise what they are doing to the same people and associates they claim are behind 3000 deaths. This is espionage 101, friend. You don't see how many contradictions you have there. Jones et all are claiming "omg the CIA/agents/ etc are after us because we're onto the TRUTH about them killing 3,000 people in 9/11" are paying money for information put out by the same people they claim are behind 9/11, and furthermore, tell their readership are unreliable sources of information. [to be clear: Jones et al are PAYING for the same information they tell YOU is unreliable] ???? No, friend. Jones et all sign up for these services to know what's really happening in the intelligence community to know how far to manipulate their readers. A really funny thing if you go through the g-files is some of the correspondence STRATFOR gets from credulous truthers who haven't really thought this through. They direct the staff to conspiracy websites. Their response is almost universally, "WTF is this (*)(*)(*)(*)?" In other words, the people professionally dealing in intelligence know the 9/11 conspiracy crap is a waste of time. I think the funniest one was when some truther luminary was mentioned, and the staff said something like, "Who is this guy?" These are the hacked correspondence from the STRAFOR nerve center. As a corporate intelligence firm, that works with many alphabet agencies, they neither know, nor care about, nor take seriously, any so called "threat" from the truther community being "on to something" big secret, because there is no conspiracy.
If jews secretly run America and most European countries, why do they allow muslim immigrants to flood in?
I'm sorry but I find your reasoning incredibly faulty. I just took a look at the Stratfor website to find out what all the fuss was about. Turns out, for $16.50 a month, you can get a basic account. You get a discount if you go for 6 months or a year. Basic cable is more expensive. Also, what's this about Infowars 'advertising'? Advertising what? They're paying for information. Despite what many OCTers believe, not everyone has to be in on 9/11 for it to be an inside job. To quote a line from the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen": "There you go, blaming the entire government as usual. A faction, a small faction..." They may consider it unreliable too, but they're smart enough not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I read from mainstream sources; I can't think of anyone who doesn't. That doesn't mean I trust what I read blindly. I carefully parse what is said, think whether it makes sense, and compare their information with other sources. From what I've seen, Infowars does the same. I've seen them find hidden gems in mainstream sources. The titles of the articles may be heavily slanted towards the OCT, and even the article may be slanted, but facts don't care how their authors slant the story, they all point towards the truth. I'll leave you with the following quote by Andre Gide: Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it. You're flat out wrong there. May want to take a look at the following site: http://patriotsquestion911.com/ Also, have you heard of Sibel Edmonds?
The 9/11 terrorist attack was a conspiracy no matter what you believe actually happened. Conspiracy: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy The OCT claims a bunch of Arabs CONSPIRED to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. OCT non-believers believe elements within the US government CONSPIRED to either passively allow it to happen or were deeply involved. So which is a "waste of time" for you?
There is no OCT and the so called official position is supported by evidence. The twoofers claims are all lacking in any evidene
Cough up some evidence. You never have. It is no wonder the whole twoofer movement is dead and shrinking to nothing
Anyone who looks at post #54 and #57 can see that you're avoiding the issue. You're not fooling anybody. Please actually address it. Hey WittySocrates, and Soupnazi... I'm still waiting for you two to respond to post #57. I've shown you this several times. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060
You are the queen of short statements, laugh . I assume you're talking about her employment period at the FBI. She was employed there for around 6 months before being fired, but that doesn't tell a person much. For starters, it gives no clue as to -why- she was fired. Wikipedia provides a very brief summary of her time at the FBI, as well as her firing and consequences of that firing. Even this brief summary gives an idea of how important she is (to give you a hint: Senators don't generally ask the FBI Director and the Attorney General for explanations as to their actions regarding an FBI employee who was fired). Here's the excerpt from Wikipedia: **FBI employment Edmonds worked for the FBI for six months from late September 2001 until March 2002. Edmonds was hired, as a contractor, to work as an interpreter in the translations unit of the FBI in Washington on September 13[10], September 15 or September 20, 2001. Among her main roles was to translate covertly recorded conversations by Turkish diplomatic and political targets.[1] Edmonds filed complaints about the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility and the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. In response, she claims that managers retaliated[11] against her, and she was fired on March 22, 2002. In June 2002, the Associated Press and Washington Post reported that the FBI claimed Edmonds was dismissed because her actions were disruptive and breached security and that she performed poorly at her job.[12] A 2005 internal investigation by the FBI Office of the Inspector General found that many of Edmonds's allegations of misconduct "had some basis in fact" and that "her allegations were at least a contributing factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services," but were unable to substantiate all of her allegations, nor did they make a statement regarding her dismissal being improper.[13] Edmonds's allegations of impropriety at the FBI later came to the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held unclassified hearings on the matter on June 17, 2002, and July 9, 2002. During the hearings, the FBI provided various unclassified documents and statements relating to the case, which led to Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley sending letters, dated June 19, 2002, August 13, 2002, and October 28, 2002 – to Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, Attorney General Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller, respectively – asking for explanations and calling for an independent audit of the FBI's translation unit. These documents were published on the Senators' web sites.[14][15][16]** She did quite a bit after her employment at the FBI as well. Here's an excerpt of wikipedia's summary: **Post-FBI In April 2004, Edmonds claimed she had provided information to the panel investigating the September 11 attacks in February that year. Although she started work shortly after 9/11 and worked for just over six months, she claimed knowledge of information circulating within the FBI during spring and summer of 2001. The session was closed and over three hours long, she said. Reportedly, she told the commission that the FBI knew of a planned attack months away and the terrorists were in place. She stated, "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."[10] On the 26th, a deposition of Edmonds was quashed under the state secrets privilege.[17] On May 13, 2004, Ashcroft submitted statements to justify the use of the State secrets privilege against the planned deposition by Edmonds,[18] and the same day, the FBI retroactively classified as Top Secret all of the material and statements that had been provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 relating to Edmonds's own lawsuit, as well as the letters that had been sent by the Senators and republished by the Project on Government Oversight.[19] On June 23, 2004, the retroactive reclassification was challenged in a suit filed by the Project on Government Oversight, citing fear that the group might be retroactively punished for having published the letters on its website. The Justice Department tried to get the suit dismissed, and the Justice Department explicitly approved their release to the Project on Government Oversight.[20] The reclassification did, however, keep Edmonds from testifying in the class action suit as well as her own whistleblower suit.[21][22] The latter decision was appealed, and Inspector General Glenn A. Fine released a summary of the audit report, claiming "that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services. Rather than investigate Edmonds's allegations vigorously and thoroughly, the FBI concluded that she was a disruption and terminated her contract."[23] In August, 2004, Edmonds founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), which exists to assist national security whistleblowers through advocacy and reform.[24] Edmonds is also the founder and publisher of the Boiling Frogs Post, an online media site that aims to offer nonpartisan investigative journalism.[5] In September 2005, Edmonds claimed in Vanity Fair that a price was set for Dennis Hastert to withdraw support for Armenian Genocide resolution. That the "... Turkish Consulate ... claimed in one recording that the price for Hastert to withdraw the resolution would have been at least $500,000."[25][26] In September 2006, a documentary about Edmonds case called Kill the Messenger (Une Femme à Abattre) premiered in France.[27] The film discusses the Edmonds case as well as offers interviews with various involved individuals. In the film Edmonds, former CIA agent Philip Giraldi, and others say that Israel was a significant actor in the illicit activities Edmonds discovered. Edmonds gave testimony in August 2009 and gave information that had twice previously been gagged under state secrets privilege.[28][29] On 1 February 2011, Edmonds published a story on her own website, adding details of events she described as taking place in April 2001. The account is of another translator's description of meetings with an Iranian informant months before 9/11, and FBI agents' reaction to it: Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this.** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds#FBI_employment
No it doesn't. OTOH, you are following the standard operating procedure for denialists. In this case a classic number 14, 14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.
I don't know about that. I think perhaps she's not a huge fan of typing. She tends to get straight to the point she's trying to make, but sometimes she makes it so quickly that one has to make assumptions as to the context of her statements. I'd rather have someone who does that then someone who talks a lot about things they really have no clue about. As an aside, I think it's nice that she realized that Bush Jr. going into Iraq was going to be a disaster before they invaded.
Let's hear some of your questions about the revisionists' statements and we can discuss them. I'd like to hear your response to post #57 too. Here's a link to it. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=474495&page=6&p=1066652603#post1066652603
Great. And, if you really thought you were exposing a government conspiracy to murder 3,000 people and the CIA /NSA/HLS/etc were all out to get you, you would use a disposable/anonymous account to register NOT an identifiable personal or business account. Sorry, you and Alex Jones/ Rivero/Ruppert etc can't have it both ways: You can't claim to be in danger/ at risk/targets of government agents/shills/misinfo/disinfo/the CIA/ for exposing the "truth" about 9/11 and at the same time act careless about how you share and use identifying information while investigating the same alleged murderous conspiracy. It's one or the other. Either there is a murderous conspiracy and you do everything you can to avoid being the next target(because if they're going to kill 3,000 people on national tv, "they" have no problem arranging for you to get hit by a bus); Or you can be careless about registering for these services because there is no risk involved in volunteering your information to an intelligence firm. Your arguments come very close to admitting there is nothing to be concerned about, that there are no shills, and no one is being targeted by government agents. Which is true. Because there is no conspiracy. And Alex Jones, etc all know that. Meanwhile they're fleecing rubes and laughing all the way to the bank.
whoever brought Sibel Edmonds into this thread was off topic but the truthers ran with it anyway ... don't tell me I'm in the wrong thread ... threads evolve ... you just don't like where I took the thread and if you answered my question we could take it even farther ... Edmond's words support the the hijackers and planes involved much more that the loony CD/fake planes/da Jooos?/blah blah blah nonsense ...
You asked the off topic question and you got the answer so now you want to blame someone else for your off topic question. So you believe Edmonds' opinion about the CD then?
I hardly think a couple of replies count as "running with" anything. Yes, threads evolve, but they stay tangentially related to the OP. Sibel Edmonds and Loony Lindauer have nothing to do with Holocaust Denial and 9/11 Truthers. Unless there's something you'd like to share ...??? Edmonds has been interviewed by Holocaust deniers who are also "truthers". Is that where you're going?
