Ganster-Like behavior of "Official Liars"

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Oct 23, 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. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think this proves the gangster style behavior of all officials involved.



    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ialxI0SvE"]'Evidence proves 9/11 story is a lie' Buildings Were Taken Down by Controlled Demolition - YouTube[/ame]



    Where is this stuff in any official reports? Oh wait they are official lies I almost forgot.
     
  2. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As I was going through the links, I couldn't help but notice that some of them no longer work

    Then I came to the one that links to the following site.

    http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely-set-up-so.html

    What jumped out at me was this quote.

    Unfortunately, that is terribly misleading because what PNAC actually said was the following:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    Clearly more misleading truth blogger BS. Haven't watched the video yet or read the rest of the links (that work) but I will give it a shot.
     
    Trinnity and (deleted member) like this.
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what you dont understand that? LOL

    the punch line is:

    "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what in our military was changed by Pearl Harbor?
     
  5. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, if that's the important part and it is so incriminating, then why did he replace this.

    with this
    Clearly misleading to make his point.

    I guess it all comes down to what "transformation" means.

    Why don't you look it up in your 1828 dictionary. :mrgreen:
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that part is right.

    and I told you that did not come from websters.
     
  7. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What changed was the motivation and the appetite from the public for entry into WW2.
     
  8. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In my opinion, there is ample evidence that gov't agencies deliberately mislead, lied to and committed perjury before the 9/11 commission. I would very much support a new independent investigation of 9/11. However, I don't think that the dishonesty of these agencies is necessarily evidence that the gov't was actually behind the 9/11 attacks.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

    The washington post article linked in the OP summarizes the reasons Air Force officers were referred to the DOJ. There are quite a few articles that suggest that the North Eastern Air Defense Sector was never in position to intercept or engage any of the high jacked flights. Consequently, air force officers committed perjury when they testified that they would have been in position to shoot down some of the flights if they had gotten timely information from the FAA. I think this article helps to explain the motive for why some agencies lied to the 9/11 commission- agencies lied to mask the incompetent manner in which they acted on or before 9/11.
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's NOT what I asked,is it?

    There was NO way we could have kept out of the war for much longer
     
  10. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
  11. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It depends what kind of "transformation" or "change" they were referring to when they said that.

    Reading the quote in its FULL context (which is rather complicated and goes well outside just the one line) it is somewhat more clear. They actually explain exactly what the transformation they mean outside this mere one liner.

    "...Thus,
    this report advocates a two-stage process of
    change – transition and transformation –
    over the coming decades.
    In general, to maintain American
    military preeminence that is consistent with
    the requirements of a strategy of American
    global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed
    forces must meet three new missions:
    • Global missile defenses. A network
    against limited strikes, capable of
    protecting the United States, its allies
    and forward-deployed forces, must be
    constructed. This must be a layered
    system of land, sea, air and spacebased
    components.
    • Control of space and cyberspace.
    Much as control of the high seas – and
    the protection of international
    commerce – defined global powers in
    the past, so will control of the new
    “international commons” be a key to
    world power in the future. An
    America incapable of protecting its
    interests or that of its allies in space
    or the “infosphere” will find it
    difficult to exert global political
    leadership.
    • Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of
    transforming conventional forces. In
    exploiting the “revolution in military
    affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven
    by the enduring missions for U.S.
    forces. This process will have two
    stages: transition, featuring a mix of
    current and new systems; and true
    transformation, featuring new
    systems, organizations and
    operational concepts. This process
    must take a competitive approach,
    with services and joint-service
    operations competing for new roles
    and missions. Any successful process
    of transformation must be linked to
    the services, which are the institutions
    within the Defense Department with
    the ability and the responsibility for
    linking budgets and resources to
    specific missions."

    This is what they said in the same breathe basically, this quote was from very soon after the new pearl harbor line, on the same topic as what they were talking about when they said the line, i.e. the transformation.

    The transformation they are referring to looks like its purpose is: "to maintain American military preeminance", and the associated three point plan to do so is the actual transformation/change. It's not too far off what the website claimed, but it does differ in that the RAD document wasn't talking about the new pearl harbor for public galvanization specifically (could just mean getting politicians to sign off on missile defense, cyberspace fortification and introduction of new systems and tactics and such, as outlined, or getting their own people down at the DoD motivated to take these streamlining/overhaul measures, etc.)

    Nevertheless it is clear that the authors clearly recognized a pearl harbor type event as able to expedite transformation in these defense policies. To claim this means they actually PLANNED such an event, or said we must have such an event, or that they desired such an event, is a stretch that goes beyond the words they said in the document, and is therefore speculative (but possible).. But what is there is acknowledgement of the potential for such a tragic type event to speed up their goals relating to defense policy.
     
  12. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...and what better way to insure our entry to allow an attack on Pearl Harbor. But that's another story for another thread. Prior to Pearl Harbor, America didn't have the "stomach" for another world war. After Pearl Harbor, they did. 9/11 was essentially the same thing in it's objective. Ultimately, we invaded a country, Iraq, for literally NO REASON other than as a result of 9/11 (a country which, by the way, DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 9/11).
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So then why didn't 'They' make the hijackers Iraqis, if 'They' were so set on invading Iraq?
     
  14. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Boy Bush was mad because Saddam threatened Daddy Bush. That's one big reason they invaded. The hijackers? They could only recruit from the "friendly nation" pool of operatives, Saudi Arabia. Iraq didn't qualify.
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have any evidence for this claim?

    At least you've finally admitted that there were, indeed, highjackers on those flights. I mean, if 'they' just made them up, 'they' could have said they came from any country 'they' chose. Good admission on your part.
     
  16. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's see.....evidence...you mean like your "the plane was buried" evidence?
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, evidence for this claim you just made:

    I provided sources and links. Can you?
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is mostly my opinion there sport, based on things I've read over the years. Don't get your panties too knotted up.
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So it was opinion, not fact.

    As I suspected, no evidence available for this 'opinion', either.
     
  20. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why don't you go put some time in, in one of your other forums?

    Yes...my opinion. I think I just stated that. Now go play.
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is currently the only forum I post in.

    Can you or can you not provide any source for your statements?
     
  22. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Currently...as in "right this minute"?
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Currently, as in at least a month, perhaps more.
    On a regular basis, only this one.

    There you go, dodging the topic at hand an trying to swing the subject over to make it about me. Again.

    Can you or can you not provide any source for your statements?
     
  24. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Same answer as before...none that you would admit were credible.
     
  25. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then post one that you think is credible, and let everyone else decide for themselves.

    You have at least admitted that there were, indeed, highjackers on those flights. I mean, if 'they' just made them up, 'they' could have said they came from any country 'they' chose. Good admission on your part.
     

Share This Page