Questions about 9/11

if all thats requireed for this thread is a comment and a link here's mine


www.popularmechanics.com...

Originally posted by Shroomery
There are obviously people here more concerned about the well being of the family of a terrorist then in the success of capturing the enemy.

Why bent your own beliefs to fit the governments story ?

Oh come on.

Is your world really so black and white?!

Sooo...because someone is asking for fairness (ie, why accuse the family before there's any proof), or perhaps requiring more evidence, that person is automatically less concerned about capturing the enemy? Fatally flawed logic there, shrooms.

You honestly can't see anything wrong with his family being shipped home without questioning ?
OSAMA's FAMILY, HELLO! You're waging a war for this guy remember!!

They had evidence of the "hijackers" 2 days after the attacks, they shipped his family back home from anywhere between 3 days and a week.

If you don't see anything wrong with that then I honestly feel it's because you want to believe the government story rather then following your own logic.

There's nothing flawed about that.
What's flawed here is the deportation of important witnessess.

Originally posted by Shroomery
You honestly can't see anything wrong with his family being shipped home without questioning ?
OSAMA's FAMILY, HELLO! You're waging a war for this guy remember!!

Please read the posts fully....I'm simply trying to ascertain that a) the family members either did, or did not, support bin Laden financially and b) the family either did, or did not, leave the country during the "lockdown" period.

Who's waging the war for the guy, incidentally?

If you don't see anything wrong with that then I honestly feel it's because you want to believe the government story rather then following your own logic.

Nope. Just looking for the truth.

That means looking at all sides of the story, and not just the ones that fit a certain agenda.

I do recall reading the report that 22 of these family members being questioned by the FBI prior to them leaving the country.

As always, I'll try and dig up the source.

Spliff -

What of those relatives who didn't share the infamous name? Do we even know who they are? You can't suspect every family member, simply on the basis that they share the same name as the alleged perpetrator. You can't even fairly suspect those family members if they do share the same name.

I'd be horrified if (for example) a cousin of mine was "detained and questioned" for something I did, simply because he has the same last name.

Even if your cousin crashed a plane into come buildings and killed 3000+ people? Im not saying to jail them, but some investigation would be good. I think every member of that family that was here should have had to prove they had no ties to him.

What if it was 1942 and the last name was "Hitler"....just let em go??

Spliff,

Apparently those family members were questioned (albeit a lot less intensively than we might expect).

Maybe it's just me. I've long had friendships with extended families who, for various reasons, go for years without even mentioning (let alone seeing or contacting) various relatives. Again, we're talking about a huge family, where a cousin could very easily be someone you've never once set eyes upon; with 49 siblings, this could theoretically apply to even a sibling.

Could've, should've, would've.

Fact is without any investigation you don't know for sure do you ?
So why send them away first and then wonder who might be involved ?

Originally posted by Shroomery
Could've, should've, would've.

Fact is without any investigation you don't know for sure do you ?
So why send them away first and then wonder who might be involved ?

Don't you think they would already know who was connected significantly and who isn't? The Osama problem had been around for years already, do you think that the people that run the country are so naive and inexperienced that they are that incompetant compared to you and me?

Yes they make mistakes (though not in this case), so does everyone, they are not machines.

In this case I think it's pretty safe to assume they knew who had what relationships, at least as well as they ever could.
You do seem to be very good at reading and reciting information but you seem to lack in the ability to analyse it for yourself.

And I'd lay off eating your crops while your at it too.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
[Don't you think they would already know who was connected significantly and who isn't? The Osama problem had been around for years already, do you think that the people that run the country are so naive and inexperienced that they are that incompetant compared to you and me?

You're asking me weither the US government is incompetent ? LOL
It's freightening to know that you still have faith in them, even if they weren't involved in 9/11, they are still the biggest idiots on the planet.

So yes, they are incompetent, that's infact the whole theory behind the official story. You're the one who's naive if that didn't enter your skull yet.

They make a lot of mistakes, but they would hardly let them go in those circumstances if they were likely to be of any use, considering what had just happened. For all the mistakes that are made, a hell of a lot of things go as they should, but people don't notice those, and most of them never make the public eye anyway.

If it's such an easy job, instead of blessing us with your presence and saving us from these evil people, why don't you get out of your chair and go out and get elected, so you can make a real difference.

They make mistakes like everyone else, it's no different than when me or anyone else picks out your stupid blunders, like in my signature. Imagine what it's like when your basically saving everyone's ass every day and when you inevitably mess up everyone wimpering about it. Of course when your playing the big game the mess ups are big too. Problem is that's all people know about and that's all they notice.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

You keep thinking that sig is my blunder. It only makes you look like an idiot not me. In one line it shows perfectly how well funded your replies are, the dreamworld you live in, and what a jack*ss you are for wanting to discredit other people on perfectly good sources, it's good to have that reassurance beneath all your posts.

Originally posted by Shroomery
You keep thinking that sig is my blunder. It only makes you look like an idiot not me. In one line it shows perfectly how well funded your replies are, the dreamworld you live in, and what a jack*ss you are for wanting to discredit other people on perfectly good sources, it's good to have that reassurance beneath all your posts.

You are obviously very young or havn't been out much and don't understand what National Geographic Magazine is and what it stands for or how long it has been around. I think anyone here worth their salt knows that it has been a pinnacle of information for decades and the society was formed in 1888 with the 1st magazine being published 9 months after.
It has had the likes of Alexander Graham Bell (he invented the telephone incase you didn't know that either) as president and it's primary purpose has been to inform the public of world geography and events.

I don't know who told you what so you actually believed it was disreputable, but I suggest punching them in the face as they have succeeded in making you look a fool.

Lets compare shall we:

National Geographic

The National Geographic Society was founded in the United States on January 27, 1888, by 33 men interested in "organizing a society for the increase and diffusion of geographical knowledge." They had begun discussing forming the Society two weeks earlier on January 13, 1888. Gardiner Greene Hubbard became its first president and his son-in-law, Alexander Graham Bell, eventually succeeded him. Its purpose is to advance the general knowledge of geography and the world among the general public. To this end, it sponsors exploration, and publishes a monthly magazine, National Geographic.en.wikipedia.org...

American Free Press

The American Free Press is a weekly newspaper in the United States. It was founded in 2001 by Willis Carto as the successor to The Spotlight, which ceased publication in 2001 when its parent company, Liberty Lobby, was forced into bankruptcy.

Like The Spotlight, American Free Press proclaims a populist political orientation and runs opinionated articles and editorials aimed at a mainstream audience across the political spectrum, but critics charge that it is a subtle recruiting tool for anti-Semitism and the political extreme right-wing.

Categories: Neo-Nazism

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, you stick with your reputable American Free Press and the rest of us ignorant, sheeple will stick with scummy old National Geographic..


[edit on 27-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Dear god, you're talking about a terrorist attack, not about wildlife ...

That's a first.

Second, I know how "thorough" their research is when it comes to adressing political subjects. As was the case with the TWA docu AND the pearl harbor docu.

Besides that I've heard many people talk about how biased the docu inside 9/11 was AND it starts with "according to the commission".

And last but not least, they are filmmakers, not exactly the first place you should be looking for FACTS.

Not even FOX or CNN present you with facts, so what do you expect Nat Geo is gonna do ?

Keep laughing though ..

Originally posted by Shroomery

Besides that I've heard many people talk about how biased the docu inside 9/11 was AND it starts with "according to the commission".

Question.

Have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report?

I'm curious.

I've "heard" many people say many things, too. Doesn't mean any of 'em actually know what happened...

Originally posted by Shroomery
Dear god, you're talking about a terrorist attack, not about wildlife ...

That's a first.

Second, I know how "thorough" their research is when it comes to adressing political subjects. As was the case with the TWA docu AND the pearl harbor docu.

Besides that I've heard many people talk about how biased the docu inside 9/11 was AND it starts with "according to the commission".

And last but not least, they are filmmakers, not exactly the first place you should be looking for FACTS.

Not even FOX or CNN present you with facts, so what do you expect Nat Geo is gonna do ?

Keep laughing though ..

Oh so you still stand by saying that your Neo-Nazi American Free Press is a more reliable source than National Geographic?
Have you ever bothered to read it? Obviously not.

American Free Press (Neo-Nazi) plaza.ufl.edu...

The American Free Press is a publication launched by Willis Carto, who previously published Spotlight magazine through his now-defunct Liberty Lobby, an organization worked with racist anti-segregationists and neo-Nazi holocaust deniers. AFT[sic] was launched by Carto in August 2001 following the court-ordered closure of Spotlight. Many of the staff of Spotlight continued on with American Free Press.

Carto continues to publish deceptive materials in which history is treated as a huge Jewish conspiracy. During the war with Iraq, for example, his Barnes Review attempted to exploit anti-war sentiment by publishing fake whistleblower memos on media bias in the Iraq war, which cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy by "Jews who run the media and government."
www.sourcewatch.org...

Willis Allison Carto (born 1926) is a longtime figure on the political far right-wing in the United States......

.......In 1955, he founded the organization called Liberty Lobby, which remained in operation under the control of Willis Carto until 2001, when the organization was forced into bankruptcy as a result of a lawsuit. Liberty Lobby was perhaps best known for publishing the newspaper, The Spotlight, between 1975 and 2001, which is also now defunct. Willis Carto and other people who were involved with The Spotlight have since started a new newspaper, called the American Free Press, which is similar in tone.en.wikipedia.org...

And for someone who has such strong opinions about wherever or not the official report is accurate or not, hadn't you better read it or at least glance through it?
As you say, you've 'heard many people talk', which just proves that you are little more than a parrot for whoever's theories you keep sticking by.
You've basically admitted you havn't actually done any research yourself.

Let us not forget, this is about your statement saying that National Geographic is a less reliable source than the American Free Press, if National Geographic are as bad as you say, then where does it leave your beloved Neo-Nazi tabloid which you trust in so much?

Do you really "know how 'thorough' their research is when it comes to adressing political subjects", or did you just read someone else's opinion on the matter? I doubt you've even picked up a copy of the magazine, your comments regarding the 'wildlife' alone show that, you obviously don't know what the content is like at all.

So, eh.. OK.. I think I will continue laughing..



[edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Shroomery

Besides that I've heard many people talk about how biased the docu inside 9/11 was AND it starts with "according to the commission".

Question.

Have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report?

I'm curious.

I've "heard" many people say many things, too. Doesn't mean any of 'em actually know what happened...

Nope, and I'm not planning to either, does that matter ?
Don't come off like you have reliable sources when you point out a docu based on the commission.

I think everyone agrees that it was flawed.

Or are those thousands of people asking good questions for no reasons ?

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Shroomery]

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Shroomery

Besides that I've heard many people talk about how biased the docu inside 9/11 was AND it starts with "according to the commission".

Question.

Have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report?

I'm curious.

I've "heard" many people say many things, too. Doesn't mean any of 'em actually know what happened...

Nope, and I'm not planning to either, does that matter ?
Don't come off like you have reliable sources when you point out a docu based on the commission.

I think everyone agrees that it was flawed.

Or are those thousands of people asking good questions for no reasons ?

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Shroomery]

Well if they are like you and only asking questions because they are going by someone else's word that it's flawed, then maybe they are.

You seem so eager to condemn something you have not even looked at without even bothering to read it for yourself, seems a little stupid?

One would think that someone making these rather sharp accusations against the government on something of this magnitude, would actually bother to check ALL the facts and stories, rather than dismiss them on the word of people who are known to be fanatical in their own way.

I don't think I have to say much more because you've said enough already.

Nope, and I'm not planning to either, does that matter ?

Yes, if you're going to disregard the information without even reading it.

That's hardly denying ignorance.

Fwiw, I'm actually one of the folks still questioning the official story; it's just impossible to refute something when you've never even read the source material.

Originally posted by Shroomery
I did not read them all, honestly I think you're nuts for doing so

But I noticed a couple good ones and since I hadn't seen the list I thought I'd post them.

What you make of it is your own problem, I'm not trying to convince anyone with it.

What then is the purpose of this thread?

(other than trolling for points)

This thread was entirely for you Howard, I thought you could use the attention, mission successfull