"You still live in the country that has instigated more military engagements than any other in history."

Id like to see ANY proof for that thank you.

Congratulations, TC. By attempting to refute an outrageous claim, you have discovered what it feels like to be everyone else on this site when you post.

+1 youradhere

well put, Sic.

"Lee Harvey Oswald blew JFK away all by himself.
Julius Rosenberg was a spy and got exactly what he deserved.
All of those landings on the moon were not hoaxes.
Princess Diana was killed by a drunk chauffeur
The Holocaust happened, it was not made up."

TC + 1

But there was something fishy about the JFK assassination. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I do not believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. It is too convenient.

why... Every other presidential assassin or would be assassin outside of John Wilkes Booth acted alone...

yeah well put sic, your whole post was full haf half truths or all out falsehoods, but thats good enough for a Nazi conspiracy nut like Darwyn. He probably has already made it his signature on the Vanguard News Network he loves so much.

@ Santa
why... Every other presidential assassin or would be assassin outside of John Wilkes Booth acted alone...

I know that my American history is poor, but somewhere I seem to have read that two guys at a pop at Truman in Blair House; is this correct?

I didnt even think of Truman, you are correct.

But besides that Assasination attempts on Jackson, Garfield, McKinnley, Roosevelt, Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and every attempt on Clinton and Bush that did not involve Al Queda were all lone assassins.

Well that's 2 out of 14 you concede. Going, by your purely quantitative argument, statistically a third is reasonably likely and certainly can't be ruled out, certainly on the pseudo-probability grounds you put forward.

You could argue that Squeaky Fromme's attempt on Ford had help since, well, let's face it, she didn't do a lot of her own thinking. And her failure showed a gross incompetence that makes her being in position on her own hard to believe.

"Well that's 2 out of 14 you concede. Going, by your purely quantitative argument, statistically a third is reasonably likely and certainly can't be ruled out, certainly on the pseudo-probability grounds you put forward."

um... 2 out of 14 is not a third... and ALL of the conspiracies against presidents came from entities that saw themselves ore were separate from the United States. Domestic conspiracies, at least proven domestic conspiracies, are not a trend in presidential assasinations.

"
You could argue that Squeaky Fromme's attempt on Ford had help since, well, let's face it, she didn't do a lot of her own thinking. And her failure showed a gross incompetence that makes her being in position on her own hard to believe."

The manson family was almost all behind bars, who helped her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

Santa I meant third in the sense - first, second, third......

Article is bullshit. TC.

"Popular Mechanics article notes that only one NORAD interception of a civilian airplane over North America had occurred in the decade before 9/11, of golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, and that it took one hour and 19 minutes to intercept before it ultimately crashed. Based on initial reports that misread the official crash report, conspiracists had previously cited the Stewart case as evidence that it normally only took NORAD 19 minutes to intercept civilian aircraft."
There were 5 planes that attempted to refuel the Leajet.

The first only did an inspection, made sure there was no damage to the plane and that its radios were working fine, he confirmed that it was a problem with the pilot not the equipment of the plane.

The second 2, members of the Tulsa 13 arrived 1 hour and 17 minutes before the crash. They made several attempts to contact the plane, however they 26 minutes later they left because they needed to refuel.

The third and final attempt was made 23 minutes before the crash. However it is difficult to use the learjet as an example and compare it to 9/11. The difference was the learjet didn't fly over any major cities, and the interceptors made no attempt and forcing the flight to change its course.

On the other hand the planes that hit the pentagon and the twin towers would have been shot down if the pilots refused to change their course. While Learjet kind of interceptions take hours (3 and a half hours from first attempt at interception to final crash) preventing a plane from crashing takes only a few minutes.

Despite this I don't believe that the US air force could have intercepted the first jet. There was no way of knowing what that jets intended target was. Same with the second jet, there is no way in knowing that the first crash wasn't just some auto-pilot malfunction.

However the third and fourth jet should have been stopped given how way off course they were and how alert the military should have been following the first 2.

One of the other interesting things about the Popular Mechanics article is that it lumps all "conspiracy theorists" into the same "no-plane-at-the-pentagon" group.

some "truthers" believe something other than a plane hit the pentagon. But this can be defeated very easily...

Many, many witnesses claim to have seen the plane flying low and hit. NONE claim to have seen it flown away. Simple. A plane hit the pentagon.

but Popular Mechanics would have you believe that all us "truthers" are one in the same...and they purposefully push this so that when/if the video emerges that US government is sitting on and won't release to prove once and for all that a plane DID hit, it can be used to ridicule the "truthers" and easily dismiss ALL questions thereafter.

It's called poisoning the well. And it works against simple minded people.

the video I posted sums it up nicely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

You can believe what you want, but the official story is such a comedic farce that it would be funny if it weren't so tragic. And I'm not even sure which tragedy is worse...the thousands that died or the other thousands that actually believe that garbage passed off as fact.

But really, the official 9-11 story is very easy to dismiss. It's the moral dilemma that it produces that is the hard part.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Most of you are moral cowards. So when you defending the official story, you aren't arguing with a "truther"...you are arguing with yourself to desperately justify why you can't seem to identify what is clearly a ridiculous story.

I wonder how you feel about that? Would any of you cowards like to explain how it feels to betray yourself on a daily basis?

+1 Darwyn

I will say this for truthers, at least they are trying. For most of 'them', I can see in their reasoning, textbook critical thinking, even if their hypothesis is wacky. (this observable critical thinking does most certainly not apply to all of 'them' , alex jones is a good example of one such person)

For all of those who parrot the governments story.... sigh. Use your critical thinking!!! the steps are
1: Knowledge
2: Comprehension
3: Application
4: Analysis
5: Synthesis
6: Evaluation

PS, holding the opinion that the government is lying about 9-11, does not automatically mean you endorse alternative theories. Sometimes it just means someone tells you a bunch of bullshit that you can see right through and thats where it ends
Like when you are in an elevator with only one person and they fart. They say it wasnt them. Just because you are pretty sure they are lying, doesnt mean you are also pretty sure they are a lizard, or a tomahawk missile, or remote controlled, or israeli or whatever.

Now, I repeat
We live in a country engaged in numerous wars (jesus how many now four? five?) whose economy is crumbling (at least for the bottom 90%), whose cohesion is all but eroded, where corporations and the government are indistinguishable (I think theres a word for that, I wonder what it is) where the mass media is merely another branch of government.
And faced with this what is our collective response?

Endless bickering over whether or not the USA caused 9-11 to launch endless war and a police-nanny state., or merely took advantage of it to launch endless war and a police-nanny state.

Fasces, Bend over, put your hands behind your back, and pull your head out of your ass.

How anyone with any type of common sense could post in writing that the article is bullshit simply marks them as an individual unable to differentiate between total, unsubstantiated bullshit and confirmed fact.

Don't go into business Fasces. Stay in some line of work where bullshit can evade detection like government or teaching.

TC - the Slate article relies heavily on the Popular Mechanics article...and that article is bullshit. It's main purpose is to attack the straw man arguments and to serve as the poison for the well, as I already mentioned.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

"The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd (ie. no plane at the pentagon), represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack....

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation. "

@TC: Its not common sense or fact. The facts are this:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/nyregion/911-tapes.html?ref=nyregion

They knew prior to the attacks that the planes were hijacked...

yes... and...

There have been dozens if not hundreds of hijackings, and before 9/11 they played out the same way. Plane is hijacked, plane is landed, demands are made. Using a plane as a missile was a new development.

and yes I know it wasn't the first time it was tried, but the suggestion that since there was a hijacking they should have known what was going to occur is just wrong

However, unlike past times, they didn't use emergency procedures
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/141206trafficcontroller.htm

Also, plane is landed AFTER demands were made, Flight 11 refused to respond to either air traffic or military singles and didn't make any demands except don't be alarmed.

Also why were the testmonies of those on duty that day destroyed?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6632-2004May6

Why was the Pentagon doing test missions of using planes as missiles shortly prior to the incident?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jed-7H2jI8

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a00planesasweapons#a00planesasweapons

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pentagon_MASCAL

"However, unlike past times, they didn't use emergency procedures
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/141206trafficcontroller.htm"

Have any corroborating evidence that the correct procedure was to scramble interceptors with examples besides one potentially whacked out former air traffic controller?

"Also, plane is landed AFTER demands were made, Flight 11 refused to respond to either air traffic or military singles and didn't make any demands except don't be alarmed."

How about a source? Where do you get that planes make demands before they land? Where do you see that this was diffeent from the dozens or hundreds of other hijackings that previously occured. Hindsight is 20/20


"Why was the Pentagon doing test missions of using planes as missiles shortly prior to the incident?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jed-7H2jI8"

Oh I Get it! Every Military plan and excersize must be done to train for a specific future event! Like that time the US military invaded Canada after they drew up a war plan specifically to do so! The military doesn't come up with hypotheticals!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

You are so smart Fasces, explain your ideas about race again for us? Maybe Darwyn can introduce you to his Nazi Friends

"where bullshit can evade detection like government"

"unable to differentiate between total, unsubstantiated bullshit and confirmed fact. "

"Fasces, Bend over, put your hands behind your back, and pull your head out of your ass.

How anyone with any type of common sense could post in writing that the article is bullshit simply marks them as an individual unable to differentiate between total, unsubstantiated bullshit and confirmed fact.

Don't go into business Fasces. Stay in some line of work where bullshit can evade detection like government or teaching."
I feel like mentioning you have twice called me the only guy on the forum with common sense. WHAT NOW BITCH!


"How about a source? Where do you get that planes make demands before they land? Where do you see that this was diffeent from the dozens or hundreds of other hijackings that previously occured. Hindsight is 20/20"
Its called commonsense. After the plane is landed, what is to stop the FBI from boarding?

"Oh I Get it! Every Military plan and excersize must be done to train for a specific future event! Like that time the US military invaded Canada after they drew up a war plan specifically to do so! The military doesn't come up with hypotheticals! "
Thats not what the video said. The official report as to why the US military handled the situation so poorly is because nobody could have predicted that people would use planes as missiles.

WELL THE PENTAGON AND NORAD TRAINED PEOPLE MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11 HOW TO REACT IN SAID SITUATION! THE US MILITARY SPENT 2 DAYS PREPARING FOR IT, AND THEN CLAIMED THEY WEREN'T PREPARED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE WHO CONSIDER TERRORISTS MIGHT USE PLANES AS MISSILES.

THAT IS WHAT I SAID!

Darwyn isn't a nazi (correct me if I am wrong).

And, yeah, real mature bringing up past arguements. I don't want to bring a 3rd thread into that debate so I am going to pretend you didn't say that.

LOL QUOTING PRISONPLANET

seriously Alex fucking Jones lmao

Ok President, find a source that proves this one wrong.