UPDATED March 3: BBC World, BBC News 24 & CNN Reported WTC7 Fell before it did (Video)

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Stop. Just stop. You're making an ass out of yourself. That video is retarded. Now there are numerous snipers shooting at JFK too? Ugh. Use your head. Eyewitness testimony is legendary in its unreliability.

I always thought the guy in the passenger seat finished off JFK, but that's just my sentiments. If I was going to carry out an ambush during a parade like that then I certainly wouldn't use snipers, I'd of used the guys protecting him. But then again, people have always liked the Nostradamus grassy knoll conspiracy. Best way to debunk conspiracies is to make up your own outlandish but loud conspiracies to mask the real one. The truth always dies faster that way.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Stop. Just stop. You're making an ass out of yourself. That video is retarded. Now there are numerous snipers shooting at JFK too? Ugh. Use your head. Eyewitness testimony is legendary in its unreliability.

I always thought the guy in the passenger seat finished off JFK, but that's just my sentiments. If I was going to carry out an ambush during a parade like that then I certainly wouldn't use snipers, I'd of used the guys protecting him. But then again, people have always liked the Nostradamus grassy knoll conspiracy. Best way to debunk conspiracies is to make up your own outlandish but loud conspiracies to mask the real one. The truth always dies faster that way.

Actually, the bullet through the windshield of JFK's limo proves there were multiple shooters, and thus a conspiracy

watch it and educate yourself.

JFK 2 - The Bush Connection

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

If you think all it shows is that BBC reported incorrect information, then if the forum was run according to your wishes you would be banned. How dense can you be?

Explain in detail why that's the case. I know it's difficult for conspiracy theorists to come up with cogent, well thought-out arguments without radical speculation or embellishment, but give it a shot.

Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere. What is your explanation for how the inaccurate information came to be?

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Aelius
Updated Story as it is developing.

Please see my EDIT for new information.

Time Stamp included for BBC News 24 footage and CNN clearly states it's 4:15pm and that WTC7 has collapsed or is collapsing.

Suggesting that it's reasonable to conclude that they may say this because there was a fire, as they state in the video, and that a collapse could happen is complete hogwash as no steel frame building before 9/11 has ever collapsed. It should also be noted that no steel frame building since 9/11 has collapsed either (some partial collapse of some partial floors at the extreme).

The WTC was a radical design with structural flaws that have been pointed out many times.

You are evading the primary points discussed. The claims that you mention did not occur until long after the collapse. Regardless of this what I said stands as fact.

Why don't you try to respond to the main points in this discussion instead?

Because they are so frivolously stupid that anyone with an IQ over 80 doesnt even need to think about it.

It has been 5 years, 5 fvcking YEARS and you people are still droning on about this.

You know it was a pretty big thing that happened five years ago.

Apparently someone told CNN and BBC that WTC7 had collapsed before it happened. Now its fine if you don't care who did so, but it is a legitimate question to ask. Or do you think that questions of any sort are out of line? All questions deserve nothing but ridicule and derision in response?

At this point, you are doing nothing but annoying the world with stupidity.

Like you a few years ago i asked questions and looked at it objectively.

I determined beyond any doubt that the official story is correct, the only coverup is the governments total lack of ability to stop it from happening.

There are mountains and mountains of evidence supporting the what really happened, and im tired of hearing from you. Im not trying to silence your voice because im some shill or whatever youre going to try to say that i am. Im just sick and tired of hearing about this unintelligible crap spewing from you morons.

Call it a personal attack, call me whatever you want, its stupid to even argue the facts anymore.

Its over.

GO AWAY.

What did I say that was unintelligible?

Just admit that the official story you bought into doesn't account for these new revelations. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[tomywishbone]

"Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere. What is your explanation for how the inaccurate information came to be? "

:laugh:

Wow, now even I feel smart.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
"Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere. What is your explanation for how the inaccurate information came to be? "

:laugh:

Wow, now even I feel smart.

Don't worry, the feeling will pass and you will be good as new soon enough.

 

[JD50]

You loonies are nuts. Just because someone made a mistake in their reporting does not make it a conspiracy involving thousands of people and the entire media. You do realize that there has been errors in reporting before, and it wasn't some vast conspiracy right?

This thread is a classic example of why drugs are bad.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh, do you not see the difference between the Gulf of Tonkin, the overthrow of regimes in central and south america, and this?! In those we murdered the citizens of other nations... a bad thing to be sure. Here though we would be murdering our own citizens. Can you understand why the average american would be a little more inclined to send someone to prison over killing their neighbor instead of killing someone half a world away that was just a "commie" anyway?

What you're doing right now is the EXACT same thing the creationists do when they try to argue for intelligent design. You point out some inconsistencies in the generally accepted theory, and then assume that is evidence for your viewpoint. It's not.

Give some evidence... any evidence. (note: this means evidence that proves YOUR point, not attempts to DISPROVE the standard story).

You are making nonsense. You people asked for evidence to prove that such an action could or has taken place before. I gave you people proof. False Flag ops. They existed and they were used by the US against other nations as well as our own people.

Or are you claiming that over 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam was not due to a False Flag op?

You could form an argument that the Gulf War was also a false flag operations to get nations to take action on Iraq. PR firms were hired to push the Kuwaiti side of the story (this is a fact), some poor little girl testified about kids being butchered in some hospital by the Iraqi's (who then turned out to be the daughter of some prominent Kuwaiti official), the satelite photos that turned Desert Shield into Desert Storm (that were later debunked by Russian as well as other satelite pictures of the same area at the same time).

So really what are you looking for?

You are looking for the evidence that proves my point as the CIA's documents on the Gulf of Tonkin or later in IRAN were revealed. Among others. Yet you dismiss them out of hand because they didn't take place in the US? This is absurd.

We were all stupid and swallowed the line about all those other nations we invaded and its people that we murdered. What is so special about us?

For 9/11 such documents or admissions by officials do not exist at this point in time. Based on past experience it could be 20, 30 or more years from now before something might come out like that. When most of those involved are old or dead.

The biggest difference between those False Flag operations and 9/11 is that there is a massive 9/11 for Truth movement and people are rejecting the offical story in a big way. Basicly half the country thinks the official story is BS.

So we should consider ourselves smart in the sense that we picked up on this without having to wait 30 odd years for someone to finally officially release something that would give us a clue.

Classic conspiracy theory nuttiness.

1) A false flag operation by definition is one that is perpetrated by a government against their own people. No such operation have ever gone through, that we know of, in U.S. history. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was indeed a fabricated pretext for war, but to claim the entire Vietnam War in general was a false flag op (which you do by concluding the U.S. "murdered" 58,000 of its own citizens by sending them to Vietnam) is, again, classic conspiracy theory nuttiness. It ignores the reality of the situation at the time, which was the worry that communism would spread across the entire Asian continent; not just Vietnam but Red China as well. Those were perfectly legit concerns despite the false Tonkin pretext, yet completely ignored by persons such as yourself to push the "false flag" agenda.

You can't even define False Flag yet you wish to school me on it? The meaning originated when ships would fly false colors in order to trick the enemy ships's crew. It's very simple yet you managed to turn it into some sort of junk.

I never claimed the entire Vietnam War was a false flag op. That is moronic since the False Flag op was simply striking a match. Once the fire starts you don't need to keep throwing matches at it. What allowed it to escalate into a full blown war was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This isn't even in question. You are creating strawman. Why is it so hard to stick to the facts at hand instead of making strawman?

2) CIA overthrow of Iran. For one, I find it highly amusing that CT'ers like to always make sure people know that 50's Iran democratically elected their leader. Yet no mention is made that electing leaders does not suddenly make you a democracy; it's asinine in the extreme to make such a simplistic generalization or to insinuate it as you have. Iran at the time was a nationalist state that nationalized their oil supply, greatly reducing productivity and exports to foreign countries, most notably Britain. But most importantly Iran continually, in particular their Shah Mossadegh, would not align themselves with actual democratic nations such as the U.S. and Britain, disregarding NATO pressure to comply, instead outcasting themselves with the likes of Russia who, at the time, was known as the Soviet Union fighting a bitter Cold War with the U.S. to stretch communist influence across the globe. Of course this context isn't mentioned at all by nuts like yourself, simply ignored for convenience's sake.

You paint what I said as false by claiming that there was no democracy in Iran at the time. You think Western Democracy like US/Britain/Canada etc are the only forms of democratic government worthy of being called a Democracy?

Throughout history many nations had various forms of one kind of government or another. Often times they were mixed forms of government. Technically the only inaccurate statement is to state that there is but Democracy when referring to our form of government. No such thing exists as there are many forms of it that are made up of various elements of Democracy. Elements of Democracy may appear in conjunction with other forms of government as it did in Iran and still does today. Same is true of the US or Canada.

What we both said are correct. Elements of both existed. Now if you are going to start arguing how that's not real Democracy then I'm going to start pointing out the fact that we have elements in our form of government that is considered to be Corporatist (Fascist).

If we both want to be correct in using one single term to refer to each government then we need to start looking up names for it. Neither the one you or I mentioned would be it. Same is true of the US and Canada.

Intresting debate but it's not for this thread to continue that.

3) Your contention that the Gulf War could be considered a false flag op is ridiculous in the extreme and not even worth commenting on since you've got your facts all wrong anyway.

Well that was very stupid.

And I quote:

Shortly before US strikes began in the Gulf War, for example, the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. The experts, including a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who specialized in desert warfare, pointed out the US build-up ? jet fighters standing wing-tip to wing-tip at Saudi bases ? but were surprised to see almost no sign of the Iraqis.

"That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis ? offering to hold the story if proven wrong.

The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.

More recently, in the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah.

In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second Front" and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."

Seven US Senators later referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."

But just weeks before the US bombing campaign began in January, a few press reports began to raise questions about the validity of the incubator tale.

Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.

She had been coached ? along with the handful of others who would "corroborate" the story ? by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.

"We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion."

Source for the above in bold


4) Your contention that "basically half the country thinks the official story is BS" is not supported by any legitimate research. Polls are not considered scientific in nature by the actual community that makes the standards for research techniques (i.e. the academic community). Which is why you will fail over and over to convince people here that half of the U.S. truly believes the 9/11 attacks were sanctioned by parts of the U.S. government. Parts of the official story may indeed be inaccurate, but the crux of your argument is that 9/11 was perpetrated by rogue agents of the U.S. government and, forgive me for being blunt, but you'd have to be mentally handicapped in some form to truly believe that half the citizens in this country truly believe 9/11 was not carried out by foreign terrorists. I mean seriously now, if anywhere half the country truly believed the U.S. was complicit don't you maybe think the media might pick up on it and do some digging? Even just one journalist? Yet we not a single journalist in the U.S. has supported the 9/11 "Truth Movement" of the conspirators. I wonder what the statistical probability of that is.

Polls are constantly refered to by everyone as an accurate reflection of society on a subject. This would be the first time I have heard that polls are not a valid form of showing public opinion. That is truely grasping for straws.

And again, you're not going to find any evidence of a U.S.-led 9/11 plot. You will go decades without evidence because no such plot will be proven to exist. The logistics of carrying out such a false flag op on American soil would require by default the coordination of at least hundreds of people, and the likelihood of not ONE single person coming forward with legitimate suspicions in the 5+ years since the 9/11 attacks is even more improbable. You cite these supposed firefighters, air traffic controllers, etc. that support your case, but when push comes to shove you won't actually list in detail or context what they've actually said, word for word, nor will you analyze how accurate their accounts should be considered. Again, because you're not interested in facts, data, or context, but merely interested in "being right" or "being enlightened".

Why is it improbable they wouldn't come forward? You don't even need 100s of people. Besides they never investigated who put the Put Option on the stocks. I can only guess what became of them but my guess would be either very rich or dead, perhaps both.

NORAD is a good example. It doesn't function as one well oiled machine. People just do their jobs. I was in the military and I have worked for government. Any large organization does not share everything with everyone regardless of how critical it may be. We may like to think that such level of communication takes place but that's a myth. Information is kept on a need to know basis. The pilots aren't going to take off on their own without orders and they have no way of monitoring the situation. They need guidance. You just need key people to either say or not say something. You need a dozen guys to plant the bombs in the WTC buildings and you need key players who can do certain functions. Such as doing a NORAD drill on 9/11 with the same scenario as what was happening in real life. Same occured in Britain during the 7/7 bombing. They were running drills for the same thing that was happening in real life. Anyway you don't need more than a dozen opertaions people and some key people in government in key places. That's not even 100s of people. That's maybe a few dozen.

My comments in bold above.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

If you think all it shows is that BBC reported incorrect information, then if the forum was run according to your wishes you would be banned. How dense can you be?

Explain in detail why that's the case. I know it's difficult for conspiracy theorists to come up with cogent, well thought-out arguments without radical speculation or embellishment, but give it a shot.

Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere. What is your explanation for how the inaccurate information came to be?

No it isn't obvious and you've still yet to provide any evidence.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

If you think all it shows is that BBC reported incorrect information, then if the forum was run according to your wishes you would be banned. How dense can you be?

Explain in detail why that's the case. I know it's difficult for conspiracy theorists to come up with cogent, well thought-out arguments without radical speculation or embellishment, but give it a shot.

Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere. What is your explanation for how the inaccurate information came to be?

No it isn't obvious and you've still yet to provide any evidence.

Well it's quite a leap of logic to go from Report -> Error

No investigation required.

This isn't a report about some liquor store hold up. It's 9/11


That would be the same as us saying that the BBC took an active part in the conspiracy to cover up 9/11.

We aren't saying that at all. We would simply like to know who told them this, how they came about this information etc. From our point of view the BBC and CNN were spoon fed a story. It wouldn't be the first time big media was spoon fed a story. You need not go much farther than Talking Points. If you want an example of spoof feeding media that would be a prime example.

As far as the BBC goes in terms of their actions most recently it's not out of character. It makes sense that they would want to protect their own arse at the expense of everyone else. It wouldn't look too good for them if they admitted that they got fed a story and they just regurgitated it to us. Twice. Second being the last video I posted.

An investigation would be nice.

 

[fskimospy]

First of all, I don't even know why I'm responding to this thread anymore... as it has become stupid beyond all reasonable boundries. But... I guess I did anyway, eh? What does that say about me?

First things first, all polls are not equal. Polls might be cited, but the difference between a scientific poll, and a poll done by say... Fox News are worlds apart. One is valid, and one is done by a bunch of hacks who are trying to provide support for a preconcieved viewpoint. Secondly, the fact that the majority of Americans think something doesn't mean that it's not retarded. A significant proportion of Americans think that jesus is going to return to earth in 2007. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Most importanly though, YOUR ARGUMENT IS RETARDED. It is entirely based on hearsay and weird noises heard during videos. Your evidence is just absolutely terrible... it would be laughed out of any reputable court. Instead of understanding this... you simply say that although you have no evidence... that some may show up sometime in the next 30 years. That's not an argument... that's an unprovable assertion that is frankly a waste of everyone's time. You seem to be playing a sort of game that just because we can't 100% disprove your wacky conspiracy... that it must have some sort of merit.

It doesn't.

Provide positive evidence from reputable sources that SHOW that your version of events transpired. Then we will take you seriously. This doesn't mean conjecture from random people around the globe. This means actual evidence. Oh wait, not a single conspirator out of these dozens or hundreds has come forward. Not a single person from the airlines seemed to mind murdering all those people. Not a single demolitions expert that "demolished" the WTC has come forward. Not a single document has been unearthed about this massive conspiracy.

If you apply simple logic to this situation you will see that the fact that burning jet fuel/airplane parts/building parts/etc weakened the structural support which brought the two towers down is by FAR the most likely description of events. Could it be wrong? sure. In order to show that though... going to need some actual evidence to the contrary. Oh wait, you only have stupid conjecture and crappy youtube video. What was I thinking?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First of all, I don't even know why I'm responding to this thread anymore... as it has become stupid beyond all reasonable boundries. But... I guess I did anyway, eh? What does that say about me?

First things first, all polls are not equal. Polls might be cited, but the difference between a scientific poll, and a poll done by say... Fox News are worlds apart. One is valid, and one is done by a bunch of hacks who are trying to provide support for a preconcieved viewpoint. Secondly, the fact that the majority of Americans think something doesn't mean that it's not retarded. A significant proportion of Americans think that jesus is going to return to earth in 2007. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Most importanly though, YOUR ARGUMENT IS RETARDED. It is entirely based on hearsay and weird noises heard during videos. Your evidence is just absolutely terrible... it would be laughed out of any reputable court. Instead of understanding this... you simply say that although you have no evidence... that some may show up sometime in the next 30 years. That's not an argument... that's an unprovable assertion that is frankly a waste of everyone's time. You seem to be playing a sort of game that just because we can't 100% disprove your wacky conspiracy... that it must have some sort of merit.

It doesn't.

Provide positive evidence from reputable sources that SHOW that your version of events transpired. Then we will take you seriously. This doesn't mean conjecture from random people around the globe. This means actual evidence. Oh wait, not a single conspirator out of these dozens or hundreds has come forward. Not a single person from the airlines seemed to mind murdering all those people. Not a single demolitions expert that "demolished" the WTC has come forward. Not a single document has been unearthed about this massive conspiracy.

If you apply simple logic to this situation you will see that the fact that burning jet fuel/airplane parts/building parts/etc weakened the structural support which brought the two towers down is by FAR the most likely description of events. Could it be wrong? sure. In order to show that though... going to need some actual evidence to the contrary. Oh wait, you only have stupid conjecture and crappy youtube video. What was I thinking?

You are asking for a full blown exposure of all evidence so far collected that puts into question, disproves, or outright eviscerates the official story.

I have let you guys drag me off into other areas because it was still a part of the thread but now you are asking me to thread crap in my own thread. I'm not going off topic.

Why don't you go and look up the information where it is available. There are various websites out there whom have gathered experts and evidence that counters that given by the government and various other organizations and individuals.

The two best sites I seen that have all the information you may wish to listen to or try to debunk, are:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

And

911truth.org

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Aelius

You can't even define False Flag yet you wish to school me on it? The meaning originated when ships would fly false colors in order to trick the enemy ships's crew. It's very simple yet you managed to turn it into some sort of junk.

It's origin is irrelevant to how the term is currently defined. Stay on topic if you can.

I never claimed the entire Vietnam War was a false flag op. That is moronic since the False Flag op was simply striking a match. Once the fire starts you don't need to keep throwing matches at it. What allowed it to escalate into a full blown war was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This isn't even in question. You are creating strawman. Why is it so hard to stick to the facts at hand instead of making strawman?

You said "Or are you claiming that over 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam was not due to a False Flag op?" AFAIK that 58,000 figure is the total deaths in the entire Vietnam War. So to claim that 58,000 lives were lost due to the "false flag" Gulf of Tonkin op is asinine to say the least. I can't really help you if you honestly believe the Gulf of Tonkin was a completely made-up false flag op. It was a weak pretext for war certainly, later found out to be half false (the 2nd incident specifically), but there is absolutely no solid evidence that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag op. There's a difference between fabrication and false flag. You'll never be able to prove otherwise. And either way there was plenty of reason to go to Vietnam; the foresight in executing the war was another issue entirely.

You paint what I said as false by claiming that there was no democracy in Iran at the time. You think Western Democracy like US/Britain/Canada etc are the only forms of democratic government worthy of being called a Democracy?

Throughout history many nations had various forms of one kind of government or another. Often times they were mixed forms of government. Technically the only inaccurate statement is to state that there is but Democracy when referring to our form of government. No such thing exists as there are many forms of it that are made up of various elements of Democracy. Elements of Democracy may appear in conjunction with other forms of government as it did in Iran and still does today. Same is true of the US or Canada.

What we both said are correct. Elements of both existed. Now if you are going to start arguing how that's not real Democracy then I'm going to start pointing out the fact that we have elements in our form of government that is considered to be Corporatist (Fascist).

If we both want to be correct in using one single term to refer to each government then we need to start looking up names for it. Neither the one you or I mentioned would be it. Same is true of the US and Canada.

Intresting debate but it's not for this thread to continue that.

I can quite easily support my case. The nationalization of oil refineries at the scale it was done and the disregard for open trade as well as the blatant disregard for NATO negotiations were by themselves as undemocratic as it gets. But yes, another thread.

Well that was very stupid.

I know it's painful for conspiracy theorists to argue with actual evidence, but I know you're at least trying.

And I quote:

Shortly before US strikes began in the Gulf War, for example, the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. The experts, including a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who specialized in desert warfare, pointed out the US build-up ? jet fighters standing wing-tip to wing-tip at Saudi bases ? but were surprised to see almost no sign of the Iraqis.

"That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis ? offering to hold the story if proven wrong.

The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.

More recently, in the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah.

In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second Front" and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."

Seven US Senators later referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."

But just weeks before the US bombing campaign began in January, a few press reports began to raise questions about the validity of the incubator tale.

Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.

She had been coached ? along with the handful of others who would "corroborate" the story ? by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.

"We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion."

Source for the above in bold

A decent attempt that falls short. For one, see the bolded part where your own reference makes it clear that the Pentagon photos are currently classified and not released. Again, no way to confirm the Times' suspicions. And they're just that; suspicions. Standard practice in the intelligence community is to classify sensitive material. Check any the DIA web site or anyone who has attended JMIC (Joint Military Intelligence College). Until you have all the evidence you simply cannot in good conscience draw any conclusions and you certainly can't make the case for false flag. Your own article makes no mention of government officials staging the whole story about the Kuwaiti girl, and therefore there is NO support for your false flag theory as it only makes mention of Hill and Knowlton possibly conspiring to further their own business interests. Where's the false flag there?

Polls are constantly refered to by everyone as an accurate reflection of society on a subject. This would be the first time I have heard that polls are not a valid form of showing public opinion. That is truely grasping for straws.

I'm guessing this is probably why you wouldn't be hired to do research for a credible academic institution. I don't mean that as any offense, I'm just letting you in on what the reality of the situation is; polls are indeed, and very unfortunately, referred to constantly in the broadcast press. But the reality is that the academic community is staunchly opposed to over-reliance on polls as accurate reflections of viewpoints, opinions, or psychological states. Polls are to be taken with large grains of salt, especially with a topic as complicated as 9/11. This isn't like a poll about whether or not you like Britney Spears new hairdo.

Why is it improbable they wouldn't come forward? You don't even need 100s of people. Besides they never investigated who put the Put Option on the stocks. I can only guess what became of them but my guess would be either very rich or dead, perhaps both.

This right here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Your claiming right here that the SEC (who oversees corruption in the market along with the FBI and other smaller agencies) is influenced by some extremely powerful (and apparently in your opinion a select few) rogue agents that have the ability to put a stop to federal investigations of stock/securities fraud. I mean are you actually being serious here? You don't think there are SEC and FBI agents who would raise hell if they were thwarted from investigating possible 9/11 stock manipulations, that for all they knew could be foreign terrorist elements attempting to play the market? Gimme a break.

This is besides the fact that numerous articles (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html, http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html, http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html#insidertrades) that have said the put options were perfectly explainable given market conditions (American Air worse than expected earnings, already sliding stock, etc. well prior to 9/11).

NORAD is a good example. It doesn't function as one well oiled machine. People just do their jobs. I was in the military and I have worked for government. Any large organization does not share everything with everyone regardless of how critical it may be. We may like to think that such level of communication takes place but that's a myth. Information is kept on a need to know basis. The pilots aren't going to take off on their own without orders and they have no way of monitoring the situation. They need guidance. You just need key people to either say or not say something. You need a dozen guys to plant the bombs in the WTC buildings and you need key players who can do certain functions. Such as doing a NORAD drill on 9/11 with the same scenario as what was happening in real life. Same occured in Britain during the 7/7 bombing. They were running drills for the same thing that was happening in real life. Anyway you don't need more than a dozen opertaions people and some key people in government in key places. That's not even 100s of people. That's maybe a few dozen.

Maybe a few dozen? Even if we were to take this figure at fact, the likelihood that you would be able to find a few dozen agents within the U.S. government willing to kill thousands of Americans (for what reason again?) is so laughable it's actually not even funny. How do you even go about finding people in the government without asking the wrong person? You ask the wrong questions to the wrong people in a plot like this and the plot is as good as dead. For it to occur you'd literally need air tight allies in various positions of power within the government capable of coordinating foreign terrorists without any guarantee those terrorists talk about it to the wrong people, you have to somehow find a whole team of explosive professionals that are willing to kill thousands of Americans without guarantees that they will be protected from prosecution...I mean the list is so long I could litterally waste the rest of my night here. But I don't think anyone here is truly fooled by your unsupported nonsense so I'll leave it at that.

Though, I will say that it's interesting you make no mention of the fact that the highly compartmentalized nature of the various agencies/departments in the U.S. government (FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, DIA, DoD, etc.) prior to 9/11 was seen as a major reason for the 9/11 failure, and that since then gobs of literature and first hand accounts (especially from FBI) have been seen dedicated to overhauling and restructuring those organizations' communication infrastructure. Why would all these U.S. agencies attempt to restructure if these "few dozen" rogue U.S. agents truly had all the power you claimed them had?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First things first, all polls are not equal. Polls might be cited, but the difference between a scientific poll, and a poll done by say... Fox News are worlds apart. One is valid, and one is done by a bunch of hacks who are trying to provide support for a preconcieved viewpoint. Secondly, the fact that the majority of Americans think something doesn't mean that it's not retarded. A significant proportion of Americans think that jesus is going to return to earth in 2007. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Not a scientific poll huh.

I'm not sure what you would like to eat with your words but I don't really care at this point.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Evan Lieb,

Most of the things you just mentioned are responded to where you quoted me. Your inability to read is not my concern at this point.

There is no sense going forward with you in a discussion where this is the case.

I'll let others judge if they should follow your logic or not. That's up to them. Not me.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First things first, all polls are not equal. Polls might be cited, but the difference between a scientific poll, and a poll done by say... Fox News are worlds apart. One is valid, and one is done by a bunch of hacks who are trying to provide support for a preconcieved viewpoint. Secondly, the fact that the majority of Americans think something doesn't mean that it's not retarded. A significant proportion of Americans think that jesus is going to return to earth in 2007. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Not a scientific poll huh.

I'm not sure what you would like to eat with your words but I don't really care at this point.

lmao. So a poll of 983 Americans suddenly proves your case? I mean for crying out loud, here is what part of that piece states:

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan?s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism.

So only 28% of Americans believe the administration has been "mostly lying", a far cry from your original claim that "basically half the country thinks the official story is BS". Hell, I myself think the administration is concealing information, but of course that is their right if there is legit national security reasons for doing so. But that certainly is NOT the same thing as believing that the U.S. might have been complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For god sakes, read the bolded parts of the italicized statements from that article listed above.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Aelius
Evan Lieb,

Most of the things you just mentioned are responded to where you quoted me. Your inability to read is not my concern at this point.

There is no sense going forward with you in a discussion where this is the case.

I'll let others judge if they should follow your logic or not. That's up to them. Not me.

Look, no one here truly believed you were going to respond with anything resembling a sensible argument, that was to be expected. Anyone who takes polls at face value doesn't really deserve the time of day.

People know what's up here. But I'm sure Alex Jones will entertain your ridiculous notions all you want.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First things first, all polls are not equal. Polls might be cited, but the difference between a scientific poll, and a poll done by say... Fox News are worlds apart. One is valid, and one is done by a bunch of hacks who are trying to provide support for a preconcieved viewpoint. Secondly, the fact that the majority of Americans think something doesn't mean that it's not retarded. A significant proportion of Americans think that jesus is going to return to earth in 2007. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Not a scientific poll huh.

I'm not sure what you would like to eat with your words but I don't really care at this point.

lmao. So a poll of 983 Americans suddenly proves your case? I mean for crying out loud, here is what part of that piece states:

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan?s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism.

So only 28% of Americans believe the administration has been "mostly lying", a far cry from your original claim that "basically half the country thinks the official story is BS". Hell, I myself think the administration is concealing information, but of course that is their right if there is legit national security reasons for doing so. But that certainly is NOT the same thing as believing that the U.S. might have been complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For god sakes, read the bolded parts of the italicized statements from that article listed above.

Your ability to read hasn't improved. Instead of surface reading a few sentences it might help to read everything you can find on the subject, which so happens to be in the article, that you so fully ignored.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First things first, all polls are not equal. Polls might be cited, but the difference between a scientific poll, and a poll done by say... Fox News are worlds apart. One is valid, and one is done by a bunch of hacks who are trying to provide support for a preconcieved viewpoint. Secondly, the fact that the majority of Americans think something doesn't mean that it's not retarded. A significant proportion of Americans think that jesus is going to return to earth in 2007. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Not a scientific poll huh.

I'm not sure what you would like to eat with your words but I don't really care at this point.

lmao. So a poll of 983 Americans suddenly proves your case? I mean for crying out loud, here is what part of that piece states:

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan?s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism.

So only 28% of Americans believe the administration has been "mostly lying", a far cry from your original claim that "basically half the country thinks the official story is BS". Hell, I myself think the administration is concealing information, but of course that is their right if there is legit national security reasons for doing so. But that certainly is NOT the same thing as believing that the U.S. might have been complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For god sakes, read the bolded parts of the italicized statements from that article listed above.

Your ability to read hasn't improved. Instead of surface reading a few sentences it might help to read everything you can find on the subject, which so happens to be in the article, that you so fully ignored.

I've read all the literature on that poll, it didn't take long. Nothing there should lead anyone to believe it is a factual representation of American opinion. There was indeed an SEC/FBI investigation into the pre-9/11 put options. The Gulf of Tonkin was not a false flag operation. There is no direct evidence for 9/11 being a false flag operation. No credible scientists think any of the buildings destroyed in NY were brought down by explosives, because no scientific papers have been put forth on the matter save for Steven E. Jones, who himself claims his thermite contention is merely a hypothesis that must be tested.

A lack of evidence does not = evidence. No one here that hasn't already fooled themselves is truly fooled by anything you have to say. Hate to break it to you.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

If you think all it shows is that BBC reported incorrect information, then if the forum was run according to your wishes you would be banned. How dense can you be?

Explain in detail why that's the case. I know it's difficult for conspiracy theorists to come up with cogent, well thought-out arguments without radical speculation or embellishment, but give it a shot.

Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere. What is your explanation for how the inaccurate information came to be?

No it isn't obvious and you've still yet to provide any evidence.

The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

If you think all it shows is that BBC reported incorrect information, then if the forum was run according to your wishes you would be banned. How dense can you be?

Explain in detail why that's the case. I know it's difficult for conspiracy theorists to come up with cogent, well thought-out arguments without radical speculation or embellishment, but give it a shot.

Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere. What is your explanation for how the inaccurate information came to be?

No it isn't obvious and you've still yet to provide any evidence.

The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

 

[tomywishbone]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
"Isn't it obvious? Someone knew that WTC7 was going to come down. Information as specific as what was reported doesn't come form nowhere. What is your explanation for how the inaccurate information came to be? "

:laugh:

Wow, now even I feel smart.

Don't worry, the feeling will pass and you will be good as new soon enough.

:thumbsup:

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: mfs378


The evidence is in the tapes. Someone told BBC that the building had collapsed before it did, and BBC subsequently reported it. If this is not evidence of foreknowledge, then what is it? A lucky guess? And you haven't answered my question.

If you just think its inaccurate information, where do you think it came from?

Huh? Are you honestly trying to pretend that false information hasn't been reported on by broadcasters before? Are you saying that with a straight face or what?

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Get over it.

So where did the false information come from? Someone just invented it?

Watch Fox News often? Seen much TV the past 60 years? Seen much news TV the last 10? Things are literally made up and misunderstood all the time. All. The. Time. Recent blatant example; Fox reporting Obama attended a madrasa (categorically false) and passing it off as a pejorative.

The BBC report may have been inaccurate at the time, but it described exactly what was to transpire about half an hour in the future. Do you honestly believe that this could just have been "made up" out of thin air? If it was "misunderstood", then don't you want to know what bit of information it was that they misinterpreted?

And you still haven't answered my question.