A 9/11 Victim's Family Member Asks for Help

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


If the Bush administration was going to invade Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11, then why did they bother carrying out the 9/11 attack? Seems a bit of a waste of time.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

If the Bush administration was going to invade Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11, then why did they bother carrying out the 9/11 attack? Seems a bit of a waste of time.

I think we can both agree those wars are very unpopular with the US citizens, without The New Pearl Harbour.

They would never of had any support at all.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please do NOT fall into the trap that is being set by this person.

Your post:

...and what the heck is a "truster fetishist"?

You kinda/sorta coined a similar term, I think....in another post in this thread...."Truther Fetishist"....I could be wrong, but I think it was YOUR idea, and an ATS member took it, and spun it back on ya!!!

Oh I know he's attempting to "spin it back at me". That's what all these conspiracy people do- deliberately spin things around to make it appear the way they want it to appear. That's how a photo of emergency personnel bringing a triage tent into the Pentagon attack site gets discombobulated into "an anynomously taken photo of suspicious personnel bringing a mysterious covered object out of the Pentagon attack site".

In this case, I have said more times that I can count that I do agree there's a cover up- namely, the gov't slipped on a hell of a lot more banana peels and stumbled into more walls than they're admitting to- and yet these characters still insist I "trust everything the gov't says". At this point it's obvious why...my thinking the gov't is largly a bunch of boobs and unthinking bureaucrats doesn't help them pursue their conspiracy stories at all, but their imagining that I trust everything the gov't tells me does.

NOW he's saying I'm a "truster fetishist". I'm sorry, but there's a limit to how far the human mind can go in following them down these conspiracy rat holes of theirs. The words simply don't go together, so I asked what he's attempting to say here.

So, slow down, take several deep breaths (ALL of us....) relax, and THINK about this again, logically and rationally....

I thank you, and am giving you a star for your sound advice.

reply to post by Sean48


I realize that English may not be your primary language, Sean....but THIS:

They would never of had any support at all.

...is not only poor grammar, in the English language, but entirely wrong to boot.

Ignoring, for the moment, the parsing of English, and the missing pronouns...


ABSENT the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I say here, and now, that the George W. Bush 'presidency', and his administration, would have manufactured a reason to invade IRAQ!!! Regardless.....
(Anyone remember WMDs????)

THAT was already the 'fake reason' for taking out Saddam Hussein, the former leader of Iraq!!!!

9/11 just fit into their agenda, is all....and accelerated it...kinda like Toyatas, today....(WHAT??? Too soon???)

WAKE UP!!!!

Stop being a 'sheeple' of the so-called "Truth Movement"! You are being lplayed, by 'them'...and played real good....



[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

If the Bush administration was going to invade Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11, then why did they bother carrying out the 9/11 attack? Seems a bit of a waste of time.

I think we can both agree those wars are very unpopular with the US citizens, without The New Pearl Harbour.

They would never of had any support at all.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as reasons for 9/11 just do not make any sense.

9/11 was a heavy blow to the Bush administration; it had failed in it's primary duty to protect citizens going about their lawful business. They had been made to look incompetent. They were then faced, as a result of public anger, with having to deal with Afghanistan because of the terrorist training camps there and support of OBL. This was a diversion from Iraq where I accept GWB wanted regime-change, probably from day 1 of his presidency.

If anyone has evidence of the GWB administration wanting to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 please let me know. Why would they ? A poverty-stricken country which has been a pain in the butt for anyone getting involved there from the British Empire to the USSR to today.

Then, if 9/11 was an excuse for Iraq , how come no single Iraqi was set up to take part and not a sliver of evidence was produced, manufactured or otherwise, to connect Sadam Hussein's regime with it.

Fact is, when it came to invade Iraq in 2003 the reasons were WMD, failure to adhere to UN resolutions , nothing to do with 9/11.

If 9/11 was a Bush administration conspiracy why did they come out of it looking like incompetent idiots. Why didn't they sweep in at the last minute and round up the hi-jackers as they boarded the planes ? Or maybe stop all but one plane from crashing one WTC tower ? GWB would have been a hero and still have had good reason for action overseas.

The alleged goals don't make sense and the way it was carried out does not make sense. You don't murder thousands of your own people in a scenario which makes you look a fool with egg all over your face and with no obvious objectives.

reply to post by Sean48


That's my point. SphinxMontreal seems to be implying that they didn't want or need a "New Pearl Harbour". They were going to do it anyway. That implies that 9/11 probably wasn't their doing.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Sean48

 

I realize that English may not be your primary language, Sean....but THIS:

They would never of had any support at all.

...is not only poor grammar, in the English language, but entirely wrong to boot.

Ignoring, for the moment, the parsing of English, and the missing pronouns...

WW, please do us all a favor and try sticking to facts and facts only. While the sentence may be incorrect, it is not due to any missing pronouns. "They" is the pronoun and the only one that sentence needs or could use. You began a sentence with the word "and" just yesterday. You seem to have even less knowledge of the English language than Sean does so I am just offering my advice that you stick to 9/11 or pilot's manuals.

p.s. What is missing is a verb to apply to the pronoun that is present. The more you know...

[edit on 25-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I already told you the designers of the WTC towers support the NIST findings

Another wild tale from some Trusters that’s all some of them can do by protecting the OS fairytales.

I suppose you have a source to back up your statement, right Dave? Or are you expecting everyone to simply trust you with your past posting history of giving information without credible sources?

...and what the heck is a "truster fetishist"?

People who defend the OS fairytales.

You conspiracy people are really starting to go overboard with these words you're making up as you go along (I.E. OANYA).

Like you do "Truther fetishist"!

Pot calling kettle again.

No, actually, I associate the 9/11 truther movement with know it all high school and college kids who think they're being sophisticated and oh so wise and in the know by spouting the antiestablishment rubbish they read on those damned fool conspriacy web sites.

We can say the same about the "Trusters fetishist."

When you posted this "9/11 victim's family member asking for help" who started up his own damned fool conspiracy web site repeating the same rubbish all the other damned fool conspiracy web sites do, except for the "college kids" part you haven't exactly shown me the statement is incorrect.

At this point of your game Dave no one really cares to show you anything anymore you always dismiss everything. You always have answers to everything and they are all mostly own opinions, nothing more. The only reason I responded to you is, because you are so amusing.

Technically neither, since neither uses any real science to prove their claims to begin with.

Dave, there you go telling stories again, your statement is untrue.

One person shows a bunch of photos and yells "Lasers from outer space", and the other sets fire to some dust someone mailed him and makes up words like "Thermitic".

Set fire to some dust? Dave, I recommend you put down your comic books and do some real research.







[edit on 25-2-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme

Another wild tale from some Trusters that’s all some of them can do by protecting the OS fairytales.

I suppose you have a source to back up your statement, right Dave? Or are you expecting everyone to simply trust you with your past posting history of giving information without credible sources?

I already told you it came from Prison Planet, which is Alex Jones' web site, and in fact it actually came from a transcript from an interview with Alex Jones. Those damned fool conspiracy web sites are YOUR territory, not mine, so I'm not going to waste my time pointing you to a site that you are already well familar with. Go to Prison Planet and find it for yourself.

Go ahead and call Alex Jones a secret gov't disinformation agent. I double dog dare you.

...and what the heck is a "truster fetishist"?

People who defend the OS fairytales.

No, according to the latest definition you people invented, that's what a "truster" is. A truster fetishist would be someone who has an overriding emotional attachment (though not necessarily sexual) to "people who defend the OS fairy tale". All the posters here are anonymous and noone knows who anybody is, so I daresay that doesn't fit anyone here, least of all me.

If you really meant it to mean that, then I would have to be a "truster fetishist primary belief proponent", or, one who supports the same position that those people with followers having overriding emotional attachments (though not necessarily sexual) to them support. Please refer to me accurately as a "truster fetishist primary belief proponent" from now on. Otherwise, it will sound silly.

At this point of your game Dave no one really cares to show you anything anymore you always dismiss everything. You always have answers to everything and they are all mostly own opinions, nothing more. The only reason I responded to you is, because you are so amusing.

Don't be an idiot. From YOUR OWN LINK to that Youtube video, this "victim's family member" ADMITTED he got started down the conspiracy fetishist road by going to those damned fool web sites, and he openly ADMITTED he's a conspriacy fetishist when he invited people to go to those very web sites as "a good place to start", as well as opening his own web site begging for mathematical proof for explosives that doesn't exist. This was all in your own Youtube video you posted a link to.

What do you want me to do to prove this, post a link back to your own Youtube video? All right, here it is-

How a victim's family member was seduced by conspiracy web sites

Set fire to some dust? Dave, I recommend you put down your comic books and do some real research.

Your attempts to obfuscate the point I made with your entry-level insults do not work on me. Jones' report is 100% an analysis of the thermal properties of WTC dust that a third party sent him. He goes into great detail on showing the area where the dust was picked up, he goes into great detail on describing it, he goes into great detail in explaining how he applied heat to it, and he goes into great detail on what happens. He then invents his own word, "Thermitic" to describe the material he looked at, to get people to believe it was thermite rather than any of the gazillion other things from the WTC that would burn. This is all there in the report in black and white so if you're attempting to say his report says anything else, you are lying.

Doesn't it strike you at least a LITTLE odd that, despite my being a "truster fetishist primary belief proponent" that I know your conspiracies better than you do?

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by impressme
They would never of had any support at all.

My original assessment of poor English grammar was correct....

The sentence, in proper English parlance, should have read "They would never 'have' had any support at all."

I was NOT parsing, on the ATS member, simply to beat him/her up over writing and grammar skills....gods knows I MAKE MISTAKES too, all of the time!!!!

(I blame it on the unfamiliar keyboards....I learned how to type on OLD FASHIONED typewriters, where it took a heavy finger....and I sometimes think faster than my fingers can hit the keys, nowadays.....so I have to very often correct what I post....because I am persnickety).