Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

9/11 was very different and you know it.

Yup. That's why they didn't see it coming. That and their inability to share information - as evidenced in the stuff you brought to this thread.

Oh.... my... God.... are you still denying foreknowledge?

I think it's time to man the lifeboats.... bailing out of the Titanic with a shot glass ain't working for ya buddy

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

9/11 was very different and you know it.

Yup. That's why they didn't see it coming. That and their inability to share information - as evidenced in the stuff you brought to this thread.

Oh.... my... God.... are you still denying foreknowledge?

I think it's time to man the lifeboats.... bailing out of the Titanic with a shot glass ain't working for ya buddy

Thanks for your input. Content-free, off topic... do you have anything that might convince anyone, or is it just an Alex Jones video and your baseless assertions about shadowy people who oddly never leave any trace?

I love how truthers accuse debunkers of derailing threads or posting OT. And yet here you are, merrily doing both and adding nothing to the debate.

Another slow handclap is warranted, I feel.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Thanks for your input. Content-free, off topic... do you have anything that might convince anyone, or is it just an Alex Jones video and your baseless assertions about shadowy people who oddly never leave any trace?

I love how truthers accuse debunkers of derailing threads or posting OT. And yet here you are, merrily doing both and adding nothing to the debate.

Another slow handclap is warranted, I feel.

Foreknowledge has been proven over and over again in a million different ways on this website alone. I'm not going to post it all again.

When your point is lost, all you know how to do is create through obfuscation a whirpool that sucks one into the cesspool of denial, and your job is to keep one there. I'm not falling for it anymore. Go to the site search function and type in 911 foreknowledge.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Well, when a simple home-made fertilizer bomb dissects a building in half (I'm sure even McVeigh was shocked to see that happen), thinking people have a right to ask questions. You and your government insist that people do not think. That's you, Disinfo Dave. You're a talking head, that's about it.

??? A simple fertilizer bomb?!? You mean like this one?



This was 5000 pounds of ANFO. The bomb McVeigh used 13 barrels of ANFO weighing 500 pounds each, or 6500 pounds. Plus, peopel he discussed bomb making with said he packd additional ANFO along the side of truck toward the Murrah building to aim the blast directly at the building.

Before the moderators yank this post for being irrelevent, I need to point out that it is- We see Japanese doomsday cults being so sophisticated that they can actually cook up nerve gas and release it in a Tokyo subway, and the conspiracy mongors merely shrug, since Japan is so far off the radar of most people that they give little to no attention to it. Yet, when some anarchist manages to collect 6500 pounds of ANFO and set it off, which is about as low tech as it gets, NOPE NOPE NOPE it needs to be the work of some sinster secret plot to take over the world entirely becuase it happened here. SO, when we see three passenger jets hijacked and flown to the Jordanian desert to be blown up, conspiracy theorists would merely yawn just before tuning into the Alex Jones show, but when three hijacked planes are flown into buildings here in the US it spontaneously becomes a sinister secret plot to take over the world.

I'm sorry, but it's going to take more than calling me "disinfo Dave" or accusing me of being "a talking head" for you to brush off the truth. You ARE introducing all these sinister secret plots to take over the world entirely becuase they're happening here, whether you have the courage to acknowledge it or not.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Here's the REAL reason for 911:

dotsub.com...

This appears to be the final conclusion drawn from your "REAL reason for 911"

And so those were the two primary reasons for Women’s Lib,

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Here's the REAL reason for 911:

dotsub.com...

This appears to be the final conclusion drawn from your "REAL reason for 911"

And so those were the two primary reasons for Women’s Lib,

It's a partial transcript. I would have posted the whole thing, but I didn't think anybody would be dumb enough to think the last line was a final conclusion. Sorry I overestimated you.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Sorry I overestimated you.

So was 911 carried out by the Womem's Liberation Front ?

Do we need to send in some Navy Seals to get Gloria Steinem ?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Well, when a simple home-made fertilizer bomb dissects a building in half (I'm sure even McVeigh was shocked to see that happen), thinking people have a right to ask questions. You and your government insist that people do not think. That's you, Disinfo Dave. You're a talking head, that's about it.

Yep, that's right silly Americans, keep yourselves as dumb as a lug nut and everything will be all right.

Here's the REAL reason for 911:

dotsub.com...

DING DING DING ALEX JONES ALERT

You quoted Alex Jones as if he were a legitimate source of information. You lose the debate by default.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You ARE introducing all these sinister secret plots to take over the world entirely becuase they're happening here, whether you have the courage to acknowledge it or not.

I'm wondering if you didn't notice MY REPLY or if you totally disagree with it, and that's why you still think that conspiracy theories exist because these terrorist attacks happened in the US?

reply to post by GoodOlDave
You're trashing Alex Jones, but quoting Slick Willie Rockefeller Clinton in your signature?

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

What a hypocrite.....

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


When your point is lost, all you know how to do is create through obfuscation

I completely agree. And here we are in a thread about a document that for some reason you're unwilling to discuss, and instead you're changing the subject.

So who is obfuscating?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This was 5000 pounds of ANFO. The bomb McVeigh used 13 barrels of ANFO weighing 500 pounds each, or 6500 pounds. Plus, peopel he discussed bomb making with said he packd additional ANFO along the side of truck toward the Murrah building to aim the blast directly at the building.

LOL!! You really believe McVeigh's manure bomb did all that damage to the Murrah Bldg?

It was wired for CD just like the Pentagon and the three towers on 911.

He was nothing more than a useful idiot:

www.serendipity.li...

Pentagon Report Reveals Multiple
Blasts in Oklahoma City Bombing
According to the March 20, 1996 issue of Strategic Investment newsletter, a classified Pentagon study confirms that the Oklahoma bombing was caused by more than one bomb. A classified report prepared by two independent Pentagon experts has concluded that the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City in April 1995 was caused by five separate bombs. The two experts reached the same conclusion for the same technical reasons. Sources close to the Pentagon study are reported to have said that Timothy McVeigh did play a role in the bombing but peripherally, as a "useful idiot."

We reported in Freedom Network News at the time that seismograph readouts at the University of Oklahoma indicated more than one blast impulse. Independent ordnance experts, including a Navy Commander, unanimously agreed that a car-bomb with low intensity fertilizer explosives could not have inflicted such extensive damage to the building and that it was highly likely that high-intensity explosives had been wired directly to the columns. Our suspicion then as now is that it was an "inside job." But by whom is the mystery. Strategic Investment reports that the multiple bombings had a Middle Eastern "signature." Others find the whole business to be extremely fishy because of the fact that no ATF or FBI agents were in their offices at the time of the blast [about 9:05 a.m.] — and that evidence pertaining to both Waco and Mena had been stored there.

— Strategic Investment, 1217 St. Paul St., Baltimore, MD 21202-4799.America's Reichstag Fire
On 1997-06-13 Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death for the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City (dead men tell no tales). The "useful idiot" has indeed turned out to be useful, effectively deflecting attention from the real perpetrators of this crime.

The Oklahoma City bombing was America's equivalent of the 1933 Reichstag Fire.

A fire destroyed the Reichstag Building on February 27, 1933. Hitler blamed the fire on the Communists. The fire symbolically destroyed the only remaining institution capable of placing reins on Hitler's grab for dictatorial power. Although the case is still somewhat disputed, the fire was very likely instigated by the Nazis and blamed on a Dutch Communist who had committed arson, Marinus van der Lubbe. There was no sign whatsoever of a revolution, but van der Lubbe gave the Nazis the excuse they needed and the pretext for new emergency measures [the Ermächtigungsgesetz, enacted on 1933-03-24]. — The First Steps Leading to the "Final Solution" [link expired]

Timothy McVeigh is America's version of Marinus van der Lubbe (who was tried by the Nazis, found guilty and executed). On 1995-04-23, only four days after the bombing, with public outrage still at its height, President Clinton signed into law the so-called Counter-Terrorism Bill.

Future historians may write:

Several bombs destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. President Clinton blamed the bombing on domestic right-wing terrorists. The bombing destroyed the records of the 1993 massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and also records relating to Mena. Although the case is still somewhat disputed, the bombing was very likely instigated by a secret criminal organization parasitic upon the U.S. government and blamed on a member of a right-wing militia, Timothy McVeigh, who was known to be sympathetic to violent resistance to the federal government. There was no sign whatsoever of a revolution, but McVeigh gave the U.S. government the excuse it needed and the pretext for new emergency measures, the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

Again from The First Steps Leading to the "Final Solution:

Hitler induced a confused and frightened Hindenburg to sign a decree euphemistically called, 'For the Protection of the People and State,' suspending all of the basic rights of citizens and imposing the death sentence for arson, sabotage, resistance to the decree, and disturbances to public order. Arrests could be made on suspicion, and people could be sentenced to prison without trial or the right of counsel. The suspension was never lifted throughout the entire period of Nazi rule, and the decree of February 28th destroyed fundamental guarantees under the Weimar democracy.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


When your point is lost, all you know how to do is create through obfuscation

I completely agree. And here we are in a thread about a document that for some reason you're unwilling to discuss, and instead you're changing the subject.

So who is obfuscating?

I'm not unwilling to discuss it. I completely agree with it. I have a very good understanding of the intelligence services from reading lots of books written by insiders who blew the whistle. The only time there is failure to communicate is when the puppet masters at the top want there to be a communication failure. But hey, it's no use trying to convince you of that. You don't believe in organized crime.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


I'm not unwilling to discuss it.

Perhaps not. But you accused me of "obfuscating" in a series of posts that had nothing to do with the OP. Pretty ironic.

I completely agree with it.

I find that unsurprising. Especially since it has been comprehensively disproven by the self-same document that the OP introduced to back his bogus claim.

Are you ever right about anything?

I have a very good understanding of the intelligence services from reading lots of books written by insiders who blew the whistle. The only time there is failure to communicate is when the puppet masters at the top want there to be a communication failure. But hey, it's no use trying to convince you of that. You don't believe in organized crime.

Wrong again.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I find that unsurprising. Especially since it has been comprehensively disproven by the self-same document that the OP introduced to back his bogus claim.

It has been disproved only in your mind because in reality this paper disproves your bogus claim that not sharing information was the official policy, and that they shouldn't be held accountable for failing to share information about the hijackers because they were simply following the rules.

But we can see in this paper that information wasn't shared for some other reason, by some individuals and NOT because of the policy.

CTC and FBI interviewees consider the relationship between the two organizations to be vastle improved. The growth in joint activities and cross assignments suggests that the relashionship is now more institutionalized and less personality dependent.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I find that unsurprising. Especially since it has been comprehensively disproven by the self-same document that the OP introduced to back his bogus claim.

It has been disproved only in your mind because in reality this paper disproves your bogus claim that not sharing information was the official policy, and that they shouldn't be held accountable for failing to share information about the hijackers because they were simply following the rules.

But we can see in this paper that information wasn't shared for some other reason, by some individuals and NOT because of the policy.

CTC and FBI interviewees consider the relationship between the two organizations to be vastle improved. The growth in joint activities and cross assignments suggests that the relashionship is now more institutionalized and less personality dependent.

Nice try. But I've never claimed that "not sharing information was the official policy". Nobody has, and this is a feeble attempt to create a strawman and save some face.

I'm not going to go over again why you've been so comprehensively proved wrong - and then subsequently humiliated by trying to save face - in this thread as it's all spelled out above several times. Suffice to say that you started out claiming that all information was being shared, and quoted a document that actually proved you wrong. Your efforts to try to pretend this isn't the case are laughable.

Note that even your quotation above doesn't prove your - new, altered - point. This is unedifying stuff.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This was 5000 pounds of ANFO. The bomb McVeigh used 13 barrels of ANFO weighing 500 pounds each, or 6500 pounds. Plus, peopel he discussed bomb making with said he packd additional ANFO along the side of truck toward the Murrah building to aim the blast directly at the building.

LOL!! You really believe McVeigh's manure bomb did all that damage to the Murrah Bldg?

It was wired for CD just like the Pentagon and the three towers on 911.

He was nothing more than a useful idiot:

www.serendipity.li...

serendipity.com???.... LMFAO... This site is Alex Jones on Steroids.

According to the March 20, 1996 issue of Strategic Investment newsletter, a classified Pentagon study confirms that the Oklahoma bombing was caused by more than one bomb. A classified report prepared by two independent Pentagon experts has concluded that the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City in April 1995 was caused by five separate bombs. The two experts reached the same conclusion for the same technical reasons. Sources close to the Pentagon study are reported to have said that Timothy McVeigh did play a role in the bombing but peripherally, as a "useful idiot."

Where is this Pentagon study??

reply to post by Six Sigma


I looked up Strategic Investment. It's a share tip sheet. The edition in question is not available online but why on earth would it be privy to such a report?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Nice try. But I've never claimed that "not sharing information was the official policy". Nobody has, and this is a feeble attempt to create a strawman and save some face.

Did you think before you relied or is that too much work for you?
Maybe you personally never claimed that but there's a guy claiming this very thing a few pages back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
It might NOT be a case of incompetence either. IF... policy at the time is to not share all info as directed by the "wall", and those that could have taken action if that "wall" wasn't there, but didn't, then who acted in a manner that should result in a demotion/firing/head rolling? Again, Gorelick was a nobody, and she didn't make any policy. Clinton did. And if you believe that this "wall" resulted in 9/11, then the blame lands squarely on Clinton's shoulders... BUT..... Clinton was pres and made policy, so there is no one to demote, etc. If anything, your excellent research might lead you to believe that all the FAA, NEADS, etc people acted in an outstanding manner. The same might also be said of the CIA and FBI guys. They have stated that something should be done, but procedure was followed. What if there is no shoe dragging, etc on their part either? Then IMHO it comes down to policy. And Clinton.

Suffice to say that you started out claiming that all information was being shared, and quoted a document that actually proved you wrong. Your efforts to try to pretend this isn't the case are laughable.

I started out by saying that you cannot use "the wall" as an excuse for not holding anybody accountable. I never said that information was shared, in fact I said that if that was the case 9/11 wouldn't happen. But those who failed to share information can no longer hide behind the "policy" and should be held accountable for their "incompetence or neglect or stupidity" what ever you want to call it.

Originally posted by maxella1


Did you think before you relied or is that too much work for you?
Maybe you personally never claimed that but there's a guy claiming this very thing a few pages back.

There were certain legal barriers preventing the sharing of some types of information, yes. But these did not apply to 9/11. The person you quote above is clearly speaking in a conditional sense - the clue is in the word if, used twice - and is responding to your point about "heads rolling". I don't agree with him anyway, although I concede that there are people who do.

None of that is particularly important though. What is important is that there was inter-agency rivalry and personal ambition that indubitably led to information not being shared. Although the reasons why are not germane to this discussion. You are attempting to make them so in order to cover up your error.

I started out by saying that you cannot use "the wall" as an excuse for not not holding anybody accountable. I never said that information was shared, in fact I said that if that was the case 9/11 wouldn't happen. But the those who failed to share information can no longer hide behind the "policy" and should be held accountable for their "incompetence or neglect or stupidity" what ever you want to call it.

edit on 3-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

This is simply a lie. You are attempting to change what you said in order not to look foolish. Unfortunately for you it is there in black and white at the start of the thread.

"Information sharing problem can no longer be used."

"The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it. Now that it turns out that you are wrong you're saying that we shouldn't believe it?"

"I post a official document which states that the agencies worked as a team."

You clearly stated several times that you thought all information was being shared. It's only since you were shown that the actual document you tried to use as proof refuted your claim that you have altered your stance to suggest that you think some info was not shared.

The reasons for this are immaterial, at least for this discussion. Incidentally I agree that the failures were personal, not policy, but this doesn't change the fact that you are squirming to get out of an argument you foolishly made without checking the whole document.