Really? I mean come on now.

Discussion in '9/11' started by macljack, Mar 4, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Never said there wasn't. I clearly recognized the existence of politics when I explained to you that it would NEVER be a bigger motivating factor for the United States, than securing the strategic interests of the United States. Fulfilling military and strategic objectives shares bipartisain support. GOP poll position obviously does NOT.

    Something you clearly have NO answer for.

    That is probably why you aren't able to stand behind your ridiculous WMD argument here, instead opting to declare triumph about previous and unrelated argument in leue of defending it.

    Brilliant ploy though! "Maybe they won't notice my argument here just got completely blasted out of the water if I forget about that and shift the focus onto other previous "victories" instead. They'll think I'm a winner then, right after I just got done getting my arse handed to me!"

    Actually this is the case with you.. I explained how politics wouldn't motivate the United States as a whole to do things quite to the level that securing strategic military objectives would. You don't have an answer.

    So what's that? Two things? That's it? Out of how many? 10 things? 12 things? IS THAT IT?!?!?!??

    What about that time you said Rumsfeld's lack of interest was "speculation"? I asked you to show me where he showed interest or what he did, and even pointed out his lack of interest based on HIS OWN TESTIMONY..

    You ran away, refused to respond, hoping that would be forgotten and sink to the bottom of the page.

    Battin' practice!

    What about that time you denied that the 9/11 commission ever acknowledged that they based those chapters on these interrogation reports and even admitted it was hard to get the facts out of them? And then I SHOWED you the passage where they said EXACTLY that.

    You ran away like a coward, not admitted you were wrong but hoped nobody would notice.

    Battin' practice!

    What about when you claimed my stance about whether or not Bush or Rummy should be charged when I never said one way or the other? You were unable to point out where I did.. That was the basis for a pathetic counterargument attempt of yours, which like the others, failed.

    You ran away.

    Battin' practice!

    And now the latest one, where I showed you how your WMD argument falls flat on its face. You ignored the counterargument, instead opting to childishly gloat about previous arguments instead.

    Battin' practice!

    Those are four JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.. Double what you came up with. Lord knows how many times I've taken you to school.

    The Bush photo claim was a blunder on my part. But AT LEAST I HAVE THE BALLS TO ADMIT IT. Unlike you who can't ackownedge ANY of your vast plethora of silly mistakes. And it was a minor detail, and didn't change the actual situation in that Bush carried on with the photo op anyway while he was in the classroom, so didn't much matter.

    As for flight 93, remember I only claimed I thought this, not that it was a certain absolute fact.

    Funny though and it shows the hypocracy of you people (besides I gaze at the blue).. You whine about "truthers" being so stubborn, refusing to accept facts, refusing to admit they're wrong, refusing to change their mind etc... Then someone goes and does EXACTLY that, and all you do is THROW IT BACK IN THEIR FACE and go "Na Na na na na" like a LITTLE CHILD.. You should be ASHAMED of the juvenile way you behave and you should GROW UP.

    Indeed!!! You said something correct here... Going on about how they must ALSO plant WMD's is NOT an argument. Glad to see you admit it.

    We all know that "validating" the decision by planting WMD's is unecessary, and accomplishes nothing, as they ALREADY have the wars underway.. It was BEFORE the wars they needed to make the case.

    Yeah how's the official movement going? KSM and the other ALLEGED 9/11 plotters STILL haven't been convicted or proven guilty.. STILL... Coming up on nearly a decade in custody, YOU STILL CAN'T EVEN CONVICT.

    So I tell you what, as soon as the official movement gains some steam, and brings justice for the 9/11 families finally, THEN you can comment about the truth movement.

    You thought the White House would be a possible target, hence Cheney being escorted to safety by the SS, but not a schoolhouse in Florida.

    Patriot911 said they NEVER could have imagined ANY possible targets in DC with the information they had.

    You going to argue with Patriot911?
     
  2. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't know anything about wmd. It's not like planting a knife or a gun. It makes perfect sense why you think your wmd question is awesome. You simply very truly do not have the first clue what you are talking about. Wmd typically have trace points, can be dated, and given the composition, be traced to production. It would have been extremely difficult to fulfill those criteria knowing if they claimed to have found wmd it would have been inspected on an international level. It would not have been like 9/11 where they could bribe victims into not pushing an investigation, preventing standard investigations, and control the flow of evidence.

    And once again.....it would have been a completely unnecessay risk. Keep ignoring all of this because it makes it that much easier to keep laughing at the levels people go to for love of the OCT.
     
  3. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bush said he thought 93 was shot down because he gave the order to shoot it down. It looks like aside from the date of the attacks, you know not a single fact.
     
  4. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your claims are simply laughable falsehoods. There has never been independent dna verification and since the fbi had access to the hijacker's dna, why didn't the investigation match their dna? It is utterly false to say 100% of the wreckage matched flight 77. Show us a single time-change part that matches. (The fdr is not very helpful since it would have been on whatever flew in to the pentagon) The cvr had no info and they have never produced any publicly verifiable info it was AA 77.

    As for radar.....ummmmm they had no idea where 77 was after 8:56 am. If you had read the Report you would know this. When the blip popped up on the primary radar at Dulled not a SINGLE aircontroller thought it was a commercial passenger jet. By their own expert opinions it was a military jet. But what the hell do they know? They only spend the bulk of their lives reading radars. You on the other hand, read forums. That puts you in a much better position of judgment.....
     
  5. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't have the time to get to this but there is a whole lot wrong with your thinking here Stryker ... not LEAST that the ATC controller you are "misquoting" did NOT think it an ACTUAL military jet.

    Like all truthers you ignore the FULL quote ... which clearly shows she KNEW it was a commercial jet, but that you don't fly them that WAY !!!

    "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane ... You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Danielle_OBrien

    Why do you need be so dishonest to not credit this with the FULL quote, which puts an entirely different meaning to it ... why ???
     
  6. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is the most bizarre thing you've ever written. Oh my lord. So...according to you...."fulfilling military and strategic objectives shares bipartisan support". Nobody really knows what that means. Surely you're not saying that those millions who didn't support going into Iraq (me among them by the way) would say..."Kill Saddam and we're behind you." or once OBL is caught and/or killed, public opinion would change overnight? Its a frankly stupid argument.

    The upshot is that the "military and strategic objectives" were, for one, to lets face it, secure the oil pipeline from the middle east to your gas tank. Mission Accomplished. Gee, the support is at an all time low.

    The upshot is that the "military and strategic objectives" were, for one, to stop Afghanistan from exporting terror. Mission Accomplished. Gee, the support is at an all time low.

    Of course the STATED GOALS ("objectives" if you will) was because Iraq had WMDs. We didn't find any. Mission Not Accomplished. It would have been absurdly easy to plant then find. But they didn't do it.

    Either you are trying to be funny or you are mysteriously ill-equipped to debate the subject. Sort of like your evacuation of most of the "What I think happened" nonsense.


    No, you offered your silly view of a political atmosphere that doesn't exist and hasn't existed in the US since, likely the 1940's. Your view was simplistic, idiotic, and made no sense whatsoever. Especially when you consider Karl Rove--he was the President's chief political strategist; I feel the need to explain that because you obviously don't know anything about politics or the way the Bush's ran things--always aimed at getting 50.1% of the vote. Few administrations if any have cared less about bipartisan support.

    The reason you plant WMDs--if you're that craven as to have killed 3,000 people--is because you can run ads on how the Democrats who didn't vote to use force were stupid, naive, and didn't care about protecting America. And you'd have proof that the threat existed. Running that ad absent of WMDs rings pretty hollow, don't you think? Which is why 2004 was so close for a wartime President and 2006/08 were such whitewashes.

    That is reality. You're welcome to study it at some point in the future because you are wildly unfamiliar with how it works.

    HFD...you've abandoned so many of your claims in the other thread; nobody knows what you really think about anything on the subject.

    Your lie didn't matter? Gee, you're acting guilty. LOL

    If you're interested in the truth; you'd school your fellow twoofers on the subject. Instead, you only wish to argue. You're the one that needs to grow up sonny.


    Never said they "need" to; you're lying again. Is lying that easy for you?

    Here is my point yet again and try to keep up.

    We went into Afghanistan in October 2001. We didn't go into Iraq until March 2003. Look that up if you want.

    In the time between, Bush administration officials made repeated claims about WMDs being in Iraq. They are well documented. Colin Powell appeared at the UN. Bush mentioned Yellow Cake Uranium in is SOU speech. Dr. Rice spoke of not wanting the "smoking gun" to be a "nuclear weapon". It was little more than a public relations campaign.

    Now if you're going to base the invasion on the WMD and you just killed 3,000 people in cold blood, you obviously plan to find WMDs or you, like everybody, have a plan B to make sure you find WMDs.

    Never once did I say they needed to plant WMDs; I simply pointed out that anybody who could devise a strategy about how to tie ones shoes would have devised a strategy to answer the WMD issue if they were one-tenth as evil as you guys have made them out to be.
     
  7. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lol!!!! Thank you for posting the evidence they thought it was a military plane. In case you missed it, they weren't told it was flight 77 until later on. That does nothing to change the fact they thought it was a military plane while watching the UFO on radar. Good grief you guys are endless comedy.
     
  8. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh brother....

    Is there a road map that goes with that post? It makes no sense at all. You're batting 1,000 on that score--the senseless positions and requisite posts.
     
  9. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? You don't know what bipartisain means?

    Guess you need a bit of government 101... Bipartisain means when both parties can support the agenda. GOP clout would NOT be a bipartisain agenda.

    Who cares? Their agenda is NOT public opinion and making the people happy about what they've done! Their agenda was securing foreign interests for the U.S. in the Middle East.

    Why would they FURTHER need to smuggle WMD's out of their country only to "find them" in Iraq, if their mission was already accomplished? Oops on your part.

    Who cares? They're not after accomplishing their lip service agenda, they're after accomplishing the real strategic agenda. Planting WMD's does NOTHING to advance the US strategic agenda.. A fact you keep dodging. You can ONLY tie that in with an election agenda, and that is ALL.

    Incidentally, since this is "absurdly easy"... Do explain: where are they getting these WMD's from? Where are they taking it from, who's signing it out, how are they justifying taking it and what cover story do they have for why they've taken it?

    What kind of scenario are you envisioning here? CIA operatives walk into a nuclear weapon storage facility, and say "we need to borrow this nuclear bomb for a minute.. Can't tell you why." And then they can go put it in Iraq and be like "look what we found!" And how do they get Saddam's fingerprints on it? Maybe scratch off the US serial number and stick some Arabic stuff on it?

    I conceded one point out of 3.. 1/3 is not "most".. Maybe after politics 101 you can sign up for math 101.

    By the way, that thread is sitting at the bottom of the page, ignored and collecting dust. I had the last word there. YOU LOT have evacuated that thread.

    Don't let reality get in the way of the nonsense you want to spout.

    Wow the most ridiculous whopper ever. The US didn't politically care about their strategic interests since the 40's? So all that "cold war" stuff that lasted the next 50 years never happened? I suppose the PNAC document is phoney as well!?!? Unbeleivable the pearlers you come out with!

    Good play. Ignore the counterargument, then just repeat the same argument.

    Now to repeat, yet again, you are swapping the motive and introducing too many variables.

    Gaining a tactical foothold in key regions of the middle east is NOT the same thing as making democrats look silly. Your idea that if they did something for the former, they must also committ WMD fraud to the international community just to make democrats look bad is ludicrious.

    One claim actually. It wasn't a claim anyway, just something I thought, not claimed as fact. Stop lying.

    I guess that EVERYONE ON THIS SITE likes to argue, hence going on a debate forum. What, YOU don't only wish to argue?

    You are saying that lack of them planting WMD's somehow disproves other theories about being involved in or going along with the 9/11 attacks.

    This means that those theories would also require WMD fraud in Iraq in order to be possible.. So YES that is what you're saying.

    If they don't "need" to plant WMD's, which is what WE are saying, then they're not planting WMD's would disprove NOTHING.

    Give it a good think and see if you didn't mean to say they "needed" to plant WMD's.

    Stop repeating your point and defend it.
     
  10. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes I know what it means. In reality it doesn't exist on matters such as the resolution to authorize force.

    Reality check yet again; both parties did support the resolution (see Senator Clinton from NY). Yet in the 2004 election (totally different matter), you're not trying for bipartisanship...hence the nature of elections. I don't have time to explain elections to you but in our system there are two major parties and they are quite partisan insofar as they try to beat one another. Whatever point you were attempting to make is a mystery to all of the adults in the audience. You should have a grown-up proof read your copy before you post it; you'll save yourself quite a bit of embarrassment.




    Again, you fail to realize the reality of politics.

    Which they did in 2003 when Bagdhad fell pretty much.


    The mission in Iraq was over; the oilfields were secure.

    Again, in 2004 there were these things called elections. The GOP was painting the democrats as soft on terror. I guess you were still riding the bus to school at the time but trust me...it was front page news.

    [ame="www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU4t9O_yFsY"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU4t9O_yFsY[/ame]

    Google it.

    Thats precisely what I'm saying, it has everything to do with the election and nothing to do with the "strategic agenda". You act as if there is some sort of morality behind it. I would tell you to examine reality but you've shown you don't know reality from a hole in the ground so whats the use.

    So, let me get this straight. You guys are constantly talking about Bush planting thermite in three buiildings, killing 3,000 people, hijacking planes, staging 9/11, firing missiles into the Pentagon, shooting down aircraft, paying off hundreds if not thousands of people to conceal it all BUT YOU are now saying that he did it for some sort of "strategic agenda"? You're supporting what you say he did? As with all of your opinions, the word "bizarre" isn't even close to describing your stance.

    Gee, that sounds familiar: Lets see where I heard that before.

    P911 SAID
    You responded:
    I loved your snide tone; so childish and now egg all over your face. Makes me laugh.:-D Anyway if I were a conspiracy whackjob, I could envision someone who just killed 3,000 Americans going to any one of the dozes of weapons/diseas labs we have at Plum Island, Fort McLean, Ames, Iowa, etc... and get some samples.



    You should think before you post. Sometimes it comes in handy.

    You've ceased making sense on that thread; Nobody really knows where you stand on anything. Last I heard it was something about people being derelict in their duties but not being in the loop yet we shot down aircraft... You've ceased making sense here too because you seem ignorant of reality. Totally ignorant.

    Trust me, you're in business for yourself there.
     
  11. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ??? Bipartisan doesn't apply for matters to authorize force? But then you say:

    Doesn't take much for you to contradict yourself.

    YES the war agendas were bipartisan. The "make the democrats look bad" agenda is NOT.. It is MUCH EASIER to enact a conspiracy when it is for the strategic interests of the United States and both parties can agree, then it is in order to make the other party look bad for TV advertisements.

    A HUGE distinction you continually FAIL to address.

    EXACTLY!!!!! Enabling foreign wars and winning elections are, as YOU SAY YOURSELF, COMPLETELY different things.

    You repeat the very point I'm trying to explain to you.

    And you've not ACTUALLY addressed the point you've quoted. You do that quite regularly.

    Making a decision seem right after the fact is NOTHING like getting support BEFOREHAND in order to make that objective a reality. The U.S. had ALL the need in the world for public opinion against Saddam and the Taliban, in order they may have their wars. They have ZERO need for this AFTER the wars are underway, convincing people that past decisions were good after all is pointless, except of course to make election commercials.

    I understand politics just fine.. I just don't understand how international deception to the point of staging WMD's is a necessary part of it.. I've seen politicians sling mud... Hit below the belt.. Accuse family members of things. Make up lies.. Take quotes out of context or make them up. Try to photograph the opponent off guard with something incriminating.. etc.. It's a dirty business.

    I have NEVER seen it get SO DIRTY as to involve stealing WMD's and planting them in foreign countries in order to deceive the international community.

    THIS is just your imagination running amok.

    So there's no further need to plant WMD's there.

    I understand they were trying to make the democrats look bad.. I just don't see how the idea they didn't resort to politics so dirty as committing WMD fraud and stealing WMD's and planting them in a foreign country as proving or disproving anything at all.

    Yes but 9/11 had NOTHING to do with an election and EVERYTHING to do with a strategic agenda.

    Again you restate MY point.

    But you still can't get it?

    Looking the other way on 9/11 and planting WMD's in Iraq is apples/oranges.

    You've CHANGED the motive.. You've gone from a strategic context to a political election one.

    It's like saying this guy couldn't have stolen a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, because he later on didn't rob an armored car in order to buy a big screen TV. Someone might be more likely do something for one reason than for another.. You switch the reason, you invalidate the comparision.

    The only way you might have a point is if you proved planting WMD's had a similar strategic advantage, not just polling points for the GOP.

    I've not said all those things.. You brought up this ridiculous planting WMD's fantasy to attempt to refute me claiming a deriliction of duty.

    Stalling in your back office for a half hour is easy, requires no planning or cooperation. Planting WMD's in Iraq, not so easy.

    THAT according to you, was disproven because they didn't ALSO plant WMD's.

    You like making ridiculous comparisons, don't you.

    If you bothered to read that exchange, I was referring to an air to air missile. An air to air missile is not the same as a nuclear missile.. They're not going to hand count every single bullet, but when it comes to WMD's, they probably keep better tabs, don't you think?

    Yep.. You're right.. No more than your own fantastic imagination run amok. Now you did NOT answer the question of how they "get" the samples. Buy them? Steal them? Ask for them? Also how MUCH are they taking.. Surely they aren't selling their case by burying a ziplog baggie of something in the desert. They already found trace (*)(*)(*)(*) like that anyway.. Evidence of an active WMD or nuclear PROGRAM, and the weapons themselves that proved an actual imminent threat, is what would be needed to validate their previous claims.. A trace sample buried in the desert won't cut it.

    Yet another non response.. Answer the question this time.. How do they tie the weapon to Saddam, how do they get his fingerprints on it so to speak?

    Remember when they made their case for Iranian supplied weapons in Afghanistan? They pointed out serial numbers and all that attempting to prove Iranian involvement?

    So what are they doing here?
     
  12. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In one sense there is no bipartisanship. You took that as an absolute; I didn't mean it that way. Perhaps I should have been more clear about it because I know your propensity to mis-characterize things. I apologize; lol.

    Okay yet again you're confusing the resolution in 2002/2003 with the election in 2004. Different matters all together. You're confused; Imagine my surprise.

    You understand politics from the standpoint of someone running for president of their senior class. Your understanding has no application to modern day reality or Presidential Politics.

    No dude; you and your type are making the most ridiculous claims ever seen.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/175450-flight-93-shot-down-inconsistency-9-a.html#post3558801

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/139862-building-7-anyone-who-doubts-9-11-inside-job.html#post2692712

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/164841-not-scheduled-arrival-boards-planes-9-11-a-3.html#post3264500
    --Your "the tapes are faked" nonsense:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/175263-really-i-mean-come-now-11.html#post3588658
    --Sky stryker's "the remains are faked" nonsense:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/175338-george-bushs-brother-complicit-w-wtc-security-inconsistency-8-a-4.html#post3572252
    --Jack's "They're all fakes" nonsense. Take heart; he may be the only one with a poorer understanding of politics than you.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/171322-wheres-outrage-24.html#post3493089
    --Rightwingfraud's "Faked phone calls/Flight 93 Shot down" nonsense.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/158229-israel-did-9-11-all-proof-you-need.html#post3109293
    --Mapleleaf's "The Mossad did 9/11" Thread

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/145453-aluminum-versus-steel-7.html#post2859155
    --Kokomojojo's "No Planes" thread. Another whopper you let go by.

    This is what you guys allege the perpetrators of 9/11 did. Just some of it. I didn't get into paying off people, stealing trillions of dollars, firing people, scapegoating others etc...

    Lets just say 2 of the above were true...pick any two. And you're calling it absurd for me to say that anybody who would have done/approves/orchestrated that--whatever 2 you were talking about--would not have planted WMDs in Iraq for personal gain?

    Keep in mind that I'm not alleging any of that happened but if you're going to go to the lengths to do any of those things listed in the links; you're going to also plan for what happens next.

    Not sure what most of that meant as with all matters concerning you; it quickly rolls into tan-gentile areas of minutia ; I do know you have no understanding of political reality, or sense of recent history. Suffice to say that if someone killed 3,000 Americans to for "america's strategic interest"--a brazenly farcical claim made by you and other twoofers--that type of person would have zero problem planting a WMD for his own political gain. Bread and armored cars? Whatever. Call us when you want to have a serious conversation.

    Again, reality escapes you and does so leaving behind no evidence of your comprehension. Put a cork in one ear; it may stop some information from escaping.

    Where to start. The agenda of the political news is largely determined by the White House on any given week. There are an endless amount of surrogates who would go on the Sunday morning shows highlighting the find. Public opinion would strongly favor the GOP in the upcoming election. The only persons who would have access would be people the administration approves. The only press who would be there is who the administration approves. The only persons allowed to go to the area would be those who the administration approves. It would be the perfect area for a crime during the chaos of the invasion. As for a "trace sample" not cutting it; says you. I doubt it would be a trace sample--remember we're talking about the people you and others described above--the guys who faked phone calls to the condemned loved ones, faked DNA evidence, planted thermite all over the place, killed 3,000 Americans. Apparently the people you allege did all of that--totally without evidence--aren't small timers. I would feel very confident that they would have a substantial find in mind if they had done any of what you endorse above.

    You keep mentioning nuclear. As if I was suggesting the planting of a warhead. Again, you read 'A' and understand 'B' and come up with a bizarre analogy to explain it or at least try to. Saddam was known for the use of biologicals and nerve agents against his own people. I'm sure you blame Bush for that too. Your lame "I was talking about air to air missiles" as if nobody would notice a plane coming back with a missile missing. Whatever dude.

    Find it in Iraq and that is enough for most people. I'm sure you'd find a way to blame Bush; remember all of the stuff above you're accusing him of totally without evidence?

    Not sure what you're talking about but while we're on the subject about why to plant WMDs; it is for taking pre-emptive action against Iran if nothing else; on top of the political gain. Imagine if a President tries to convince the public of Iran having WMDs? Think there will be much support for taking actions "in the strategic interest" there buddy? Don't think so! Additionally the whole legacy thing also weighs into the decision. That gets into the arena of Presidential reality so I'm sure you won't understand it.
     
  13. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I guess then that I don't put much credence in what you or others of your ilk post. When you guys start off with insults, and extreme allegiance to, and revulsion to, what you guys do, then hey, I guess I'm the same as you do I, consider what you post ridiculous, a lie, not credible and not objective, and finally very closed minded. I don't read BlueIncorporated'
    s posts because she's so obviously shillish and closed minded, it isn't even worth consideration. I used to explore your posts a bit more but, you're stuck on the same spot of the broken record, answering questions with questions and avoiding direct answers. "Site your source" (I consider) a delay tactic. A diversionary tactic as well. That's my opinion.
    In short, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
     
  14. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it's clad in aluminum that would be news to me. Do you have any proof where you could reference that claim? (I think this is the only point worth responding to).
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=104

     
  16. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And the more correct interpretation is I cannot refute any of what she says so will avoid it like the plague ... I have nothing of value to add nor can I defend my claims so will ignore them and march away pretending to the the aggrieved party.

    And you know that too ... despite all your little hand-waving and ego-saving protestations to the contrary, deep down inside yourself you know it to be true !!!
     
  17. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good job on showing how poor your level of research actually is ... well done, this is one of the best examples of truther ineptitude around and demonstrative of why they will never be able to accomplish anything ... they are too silly to know what is correct or not !!!

    That the Towers were clad in aluminium is HISTORIC FACT and childishly simple to find out !!!

    http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

    http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

    Cladding which can clearly where it has detatched from the steel columns ...

    [​IMG]

    Now I wonder why there would be such cladding on a steel building ... I wonder if anyone could think of an idea as to why it would be there ... :confuse: ... ???

    This is simple, simple, simple stuff RtWngaFraud, and the reality that you did not "know" this should tell you something about how good you are at proper research, as well as your ability to judge information competently.

    Aw, diddums !!!

    Were the others too close to the truth for comfort then ???
     
  18. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What he meant to say was that he can't cite his source--either through dishonesty or sheer laziness--so he considers it unfair.

    Exhibit A ladies and gentlemen of why the twoofer movement has had nine tractionless years. I LOVE IT!
     
  19. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tractionless? They have plenty of traction these days, it's just that their transmission's in reverse.
     
  20. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No to mention all the grinding gears and stalling going on.
     
  21. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    YES! Different matters! You get the idea. So why you still arguing? Starting foreign wars and trying to boost GOP poll posion are altogether different matters, so clearly you should see why it's silly to argue planting WMD's to win an election has no relevance to looking the other way on 9/11 in order to start wars. Different actions, different reasons.

    The only thing escaping is your answer to the question.

    So explain, how they "get" the "samples".

    So how big a sample? And you said before, placing "WMD's" in Iraq.. Are they weapons themselves being planted, or canisters or little ziplock baggies full of powder or what?

    And you've STILL not explained how they tie the evidence to Saddam. You just said that ONLY U.S. personnel would be allowed on the site (so you don't really need to "plant" and then "find" it would just be the CIA possessing these "samples" anyway as nobody else has verified any discovery.

    All the rest of the world would simply see people in suits at a press conference or something pointing to what? Bags of powder or something? And they've not been able to show how Saddam had WMD's?

    Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) I've not claimed or endorsed any of that.

    Well they wouldn't have "validated" their original invasion then anyway.. Everyone knew Saddam had chems from the 80's. That's why they weren't shocked when they found those relics anyway, which they did (a discovery on par with the one you seem to be promoting here).

    What was said to justify the war, was that Saddam had some of "the most lethal weapons ever devised", had an ACTIVE nuclear weapons program, and could stike Western powers with these powerful WMD's on an imminent basis.

    NONE of that is validated by finding whatever it is you want to go plant in the desert.

    By the way try some fact checking first before you come out with more nonsense like you usually do.. Saddam never used biological weapons, on his own people or otherwise.

    Ok so how do they tie those "weapons" or whatever it is they are "planting" to Iran?
     
  22. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You guys are all describing the official story movement!

    How's that prosecution of the "principal architect" and other alleged 9/11 plotters coming along? You've only had them in custody nearly a decade now.. They STILL can't prove they did it? They STILL can't bring justice to ANYONE who helped kill 3000 people.. No justice for the families yet.. Where's Osama anyway?

    Once your own movement gains some steam THEN you can go ahead and comment about the truth movement.
     
  23. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once again my dear; you are exhibiting total ignorance of politics. I'm sure you're unahppy about it but your Sain't Kalhid and Sain't Osama have been neutralized through brute American force. Sorry about that.
     
  24. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You stopped making sense a while back due to your utter confusion/ignorance on the subject at hand. I simply re-stated my thesis. An argument takes place when two parties argue points. You have no point; hence no argument.


    It never happened so it's speculation but if I were a conspiracy whacko, I'd get it the same way you said Bush/Cheney/Rummy got that phantom missile that did then didn't take down Flight 93.

    Yes I did; find it in Iraq, it would be tied to Saddam.

    So are you saying:

    Sky Stryker, Jack4freedom, Kookoo, and others are lying? A simple "yes" or "yes" will do.

    Actually it would validate everything the Administration did in terms of saying he had WMDs.

    A singularly idiotic statement on that level is rare.

    http://complextopics.blogspot.com/2008/05/iraq-war.html

    As a public health professional, I have to tell you that the pictures on that site are low tar (I posted it just for the pictures and don't necessarily agree with the blog); I've seen much, much worse instances of your Sain't Saddam's handiwork. He needed to disappear.

    Wow, did you misunderstand what I just said or what? I don't have time to explain to you subject/verb agreements. Go bother some other adult.
     
  25. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's rewind here.. It was YOUR argument.. YOU are the one who brought up a lack of a WMD planting conspiracy involving the CIA in Iraq in order to earn the GOP polling points as YOUR argument against conspiracy theories implicating US leadership in complicity in the 9/11 attack.. Now you have not argued this point, rather, as you so aptly put it: "re-stated my thesis" i.e. failed to support said thesis only repeating the thesis instead.

    A conventional military piece of ammunion is in NO WAY comparable to what are known as WMD's.. In NO WAY would they be controlled the same.

    So, YOU claimed this WMD planting conspiracy in Iraq would be "ridiculously easy" or something like that. So it is up to YOU to illustrate a ridiculously easy way to acquire these materials and making them disappear without accounting for them.

    You've completely failed to back up your thesis, yet again.. I want to see how you pull off this "ridiculously easy" operation.. Explain to me where they can get these "samples" and how.

    It takes more than that.. Proving Saddam having active WMD production programs isn't proven by finding little sample ziplock baggies buried under some sand... You need a forensic trail to some sort of WMD production in Iraq. It's like saying that finding a nickle bag of weed on some guy proves he cultivates fields of plants.

    Again, we are talking about some of the "most lethal weapons ever devised".. So whatever you plant better be somewhat lethal, with delivery systems as viable in all.

    So are you saying:

    No.. They said he had an active nuclear weapons program, some of the most lethal weapons ever devised, and a means to deliver death to Americans via WMD's.

    THIS is not proven by burying some small trace samples of anthrax or whatever in the sand.

    Sorry but the "trust me I'm an expert" argument isn't going to fly here at all. In the massive totality of the www and beyond, show me the indepentent analysis/verifications of these pictures and their subsequent verifications of biological agents as apparent in these victims, maybe some autopsy reports, etc. you know something a bit more objective for purposes of debate.. Please.
     

Share This Page