"" All of your quotes say essentially "we have no problem with your attack on Iraq, but don't forget to take out Iran as well"."

No, that's not what the quotes say. But you're not going to address them and instead just believe that the Jews are behind everything. At the very least the quotes say that Israel wasn't pushing the US towards war with Iraq. Many of the quotes say that Israel wasn't particularly concerned about the Iraqi threat. Many of the quotes say that Israel feared the repercussions of a failed war in Iraq, and also were concerned that the US would impose an unfair peace settlement on them in order to get Arab countries to go along with it. But you'll ignore all of that because it doesn't fit your narrative. If the fact that Israel didn't publicly oppose the war and instead issued a gag order on discussing it is somehow evidence of your alleged Jewish cabal to control American foreign policy then fine, that's what you want to believe. How Israel could get away with openly defying their only reliable friend is beyond me, but maybe you can come up with something.

"Right, he just said that America must destroy regimes that 'support terror', and listed Iraq among the regimes that 'support terror'"

He made a bunch of suggestions for going after these states, none of which involved war and occupation.

"But there is no substitute for the key action that we must take: imposing the
most punishing diplomatic, economic and military sanction on all terrorist
states. To this must be added these measures: Freeze financial assets in the
West of terrorist regimes and organizations; revise legislation, subject to
periodic renewal, to enable better surveillance against organizations
inciting violence; keep convicted terrorists behind bars. Do not negotiate
with terrorists; train special forces to fight terror; and not least
important, impose sanctions on suppliers of nuclear technology to terrorist
states."

You said he "openly called for war in Iraq". No he didn't. Iraq was one of many things he talked about. He talked about Iran and the Palestinians more than Iraq. Are you suggesting then that he called for war against every threat he mentioned in the speech?
That's absurd on its face.

" I mean, he was just the most popular (in the US) living former prime minister of Israel who spoke good English and was also about to be appointed foreign minister. Yup, not relevant at all..."

Compared to the Prime Minister, the Chief of Staff, the head of the Army, the Defense Minister - yeah he wasn't relevant. Plus he wouldn't be appointed foreign minister for another year. But you want to select particular voices for amplification and ignore the rest because it's inconvenient. You asked for articles from 2002-2003 showing that the government lobbied for Iran to be the main concern instead of Iraq. I showed you them. Now of course you'll move the goal posts or ignore the evidence, as is typical of you.

"you're going to have to accept that virtually everyone else here disagrees with you about whether or not there are holes in the official story of 9/11. "

There are holes Mafia. I'm sorry you and unnamed others do not wish to see them. Hole #1 and the biggest of them all is the collapse of WTC 7. If the 9-11 Commission Report is representative of the official story that you've clung to, it doesn't even address this.

How does this glaring omission satisfy the burden of proof? It makes no attempt to even analyze all of it.

NIST thoroughly debunked the WTC 7 allegations.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

WTC 7 was hit by debris. You can see pictures of it before it's collapse, there are huge chunks of it missing. And it was on fire for some time, which firefighters were unable to put out because of low water pressure. The collapse of WTC 7 has been looked into and satisfactorily explained in a report by FEMA and in much more detail, with more accurate starting data by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) assisted by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and the Structural Engineers Association of New York. So, yeah, you're right, other than these reports which comprise input by 8 different organizations absolutely NO ONE has tried to analyze the collapse of WTC 7.

Honestly Darwyn where do you get your information? You say something like "Hole #1 and the biggest of them all is the collapse of WTC 7. If the 9-11 Commission Report is representative of the official story that you've clung to, it doesn't even address this. How does this glaring omission satisfy the burden of proof? It makes no attempt to even analyze all of it." and all I had to do was go to wikipedia, enter WTC 7 and find several lengthy paragraphs contradicting you. You say these things that I can debunk by just putting a single key word into Google and clicking the first link. That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

First, excellent first post Sicarus. Are you a writer? I cant remember if you are one of the 'crazies' here, but you have been perfectly reasonable in this thread IMHO.

To address your question; the propaganda and marginalisation you speak of has always been so. Read up on 'truth' under the stalin years. The government has a responsibility to take a position. And by error, confusion, convenience or malevolence it aint always the real truth, which is usually too complex and unknown to express in words in a timely fashion anyway.

Obi, I'm glad I could find the time to reply to you (HUGS). Your position is very simplistic. You assume one must choose between the goverment story and a convoluted conspiracy involving thousands. This is not how a conspiracy 'properly done' actually works.

Western intelligence discovers and monitors and terminates terrorist ops on a daily basis. All a 9/11 would require is for one of these ops to be allowed to complete its mission. This only needs one person in authority to re-assign the personnel that have been monitoring the plot. This single person will have been verbally instructed, possibly very obliquely, by other senior authorities. So at a minimum, maybe 1-3 people need to be 'in the know', and they will never talk, nor would be allowed to. Likely they are old people and may have died of natural causes by now anyway ;) So you see it does not require a cast of thousands to be a 'conspiracy'. And the one guy who has some fingerprints on the event, at a VERY secret level, what is he actually technically guilty of? Negligence at worst.

What's the motivation for a planned 9/11 you ask? The incredible fear and righteousness that 9/11 generated has done much to grease the gears of the massive program of realpolitik we have witnessed over the last 10 years plus. Which, as you may have noticed, has generally been a disaster for the 'little man' wordwide.

Now, Im NOT saying I believe 9/11 WAS a conspiracy, but a FAIR minded non-simpleton at least considers the possibilities.


Iran: A glance at a map of the middle east shows Iran is now almost surrounded by a LOT of US military hardware, preventing iranian expansion or influence, and providing a base of ops against iran. Who cares what some israeli politician says about it?

"Now, Im NOT saying I believe 9/11 WAS a conspiracy, but a FAIR minded non-simpleton at least considers the possibilities. "

Holy Sh*t thank you.
Most of the alternate theories I hear are laughable, it very frustrationg to be pigeonhold with alex jones or the people who made loose change /zeitgheist whatever simply because I question the official story.

Then of course everyone just outs words in my mouth and uses what i didnt say to insult me etc.

Yes I know this is nothing new, but look at the places it has happened. are any of those places somewhere you'd like to live? everyone says it cant happen here, but its happening right now. shit in the time since I've stated my last dip game, the patriot act was renewed and expanded with no disscussion, FBI has powers that exceed cointelpro, police are being replaced by swat, militarization like sheriffs having APC's etc. Us boming Libya is not a war but hacking into US computers is. too much to list really. We've seen it all before. I dont want to be the "WAKE UPZ YOUZ R ALL SHEEP" guy, but its fucking funny people dont see it coming around again.
I mean, there has always been corruption, and abuse of power, and rights being trampled etc. But here in america, its very obviously getting worse. more of a police state, more repressive laws. Cops are even starting to arrest people for video-taping them for godsake.

oh yeah and I am one of the "crazies" here.
I've been labeled as such anyways. I think this thread is a pretty good example of how I got that label.
Sicarius tries to disscuss totalitarianism.
Sicarius is not a skilled orator so uses bad examples, or gets tripped up by word twisting etc.
Sicarius gets words put into their mouth.
Sicarius tries to defend themselves but gets more and more frustrated as people seem to not even read what i say
Sicarius gives up in frustration, thus ceases to defend themself
thus sicarius is crazy

Sicarius is plural?

OK; I've considered the possibilities. And have come to the conclusion that it was a conspiracy, financed by Osama Bin Laden, and the US government wasn't involved.

Of course the usual department politics and massive incompetence that we all know and love did play a role.

What now?

Singular they is used when gender is unimportant or when purposefully trying to avoid using it.

"have come to the conclusion that it was a conspiracy, financed by Osama Bin Laden, and the US government wasn't involved...... What now? "

Gee I dont know, perhaps we could stop trying to yell each other into submission about who commited 9-11, which I think is pretty fucking stupid.
but by all means, go on, I gave up trying to have a discussion like 3 pages ago. I am posting here now because I just got off work and I'm waiting for my coffee to percolate.

And I just like to see what people say to/about me.

Well, obviously it is stupid since we know who commited it.

I'm just wondering what being a "non-simpleton" who "considers the possibilities" was supposed to entail other than the conclusion that it was in fact commited by a group of muslim extremists.

Manganese, given the Bushs' relationship to the Saudis in general, and the BL family in particular, don't you think that it might be a little more layered? Would you consider it a conspiracy if, prior to the attack, the security services were told to go easy on those nice Whabbi guys for reasons of finance/profit? Correct me if I am wrong but hasn't the whole A-Q phenomimum grown out of a similar line of reasoning in Afghanistan, where these guys were initially on ''our'' side? Ergo the active cooperation in getting so many ''friends'' out of the country in the immediate aftermath of the attack. You never know some of them might have had useful (or do I mean embarrassing?) information to impart.

Singular they in the context you used it is a butchering of the English language. If you're that paranoid about gender rewrite your sentence to avoid it, don't resort to bastard grammar.

Is Fulham ever going to admit he was wrong about the flights during the no-fly order or are we just going to endure his insinuations forever?

Obviously he isn't going to respond to me, so someone else make the same point so he can actually be held accountable for his smarmy bs for once.

I'm not saying it wasnt committed by muslim extremeists.
9-11 is not my point for the hundredth fucking time.
my point is that it is stupid to trust the government.

But nooooo, not the GOVERNMENT, they have our best interests in mind. They wouldnt ever try to fake a terrorist attacks like hi-jackings and bombing just to get public support for a war!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Sure the government is corrupt, it always has been, but you couldnt possibly keep something like that a secret. I mean its not like the US government has some sort of huge shadowy army that commits assassinations, thefts, bombings, disease spreading, gunrunning to violent paramilitaries, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, rigging elections, or anything like that.

In fact, who is allende? who is smedly butler? I've certainly never heard of the bay of pigs or gulf of tonkin
In fact, heres a big ass list of things 've never heard of, and certianly wont research myself.

MK-ultra
operation gladio
operation CHAOS
Bank of Credit and Commerce International/Nugan Hand Bank
Drug trafficking by the CIA
penikovsky papers
overthrow of Iran
overthrow of guatemala (arbenz)
overthrow of zaire/assassination of lumumba
last 80 years of dominican republic
indonesia/suharto
overthrow of greece (67, papendreou)
Chile, allende
Laos, about a coup a year
cambodia, sihanouk/khemer rouge
Angola
orlando letelier
grenada
el salvador
nicaragua
afghanistan

"Singular they in the context you used it is a butchering of the English language."

its been around since at least shakespeare, prolly since middle english. Fucking deal with it.

I repeat: I have considered the possibilities, the corruption of the shurbbery and even weighed the actual evidence. The conclusion still is that it was not a false flag operation.

I do not trust the government, I keep my laser handy. What now?

Yeah, in the sense of "who left their shoes by the candlestick maker?" Notice how I referred to the context in which you used it.

"Billy left their shoes by the candlestick maker" is another thing entirely. It's also vague, since you don't know if it's Billy's own shoes or the shoes of a different group of people that are being referred to.

It's also confusing and hard to pull off right. You yourself even wrote "Sicarius tries to defend themselves," when you should have used "themself" using your own silly system.

Gender-neutral language in and of itself is not a bad thing. Butchering the English language to do so is. It also makes people take you even less seriously, a tough thing to pull off when you"re pushing 9/11 denialism.

"Prolly" is not a word.

Thank you invictus. The completely off topic language discussion so far has had more actual content than the previous discussion. It is heartening, but it does not answer my question.

re. the immediate aftermath of 9/11
Further to my previously given reference in the St.Pete. newspaper, which seems to have been ignored, I should like to add this:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/world/Bin-Laden-familys-US-exit.2458400.jp

Yes I did address your newspaper article about the Tampa flight. Once again you just make stuff up.

This article isn't saying anything new. The Commission report acknowledges that Clarke approved the evacuation. You haven't provided a shred of evidence supporting your claim that they were evacuated when airspace was closed. Airspace was opened on the morning of the 13th. Most of the flights happened well after that.

Here's what the report says, which confirms everything said in this article.

"Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us,“I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me.” Clarke added,“I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.”

It's also confusing and hard to pull off right. You yourself even wrote "Sicarius tries to defend themselves," when you should have used "themself" using your own silly system.

yeah you got me there.


its prolly not, but I'm prolly gonna keep using it, not because its correct or eloquent, but because I dont give a shit and because all things change, especially language, Thats why english that was spoken only a few generations ago is wholly unrecognizable and even have their own names "old" english, and "middle" english, not to mention that english is basically just a mashing up of germanic and romance languages, heavily influenced by nordic/danish peoples, I'm also gonna write this in one long ass totally fucked up run-on sentence, because people like you are funny to me, being anal about silly gramatical rules to make yourself appear more intelligent than I, its distracting, utterly pointless (correcting grammar on an intenet forum? come on. just come on.) and I have no interest.

Also I am not pushing anything. Thats not my roundabout way to gently nudge you in the direction I want you to go, its just how it is. I obviously dont deny 9-11 happened, we're fucking talking about it right now. I'm not saying who did or didnt do it, I dont give a shit, and honestly I really dont know. Who could possibly know? Unless you're nostradamus or the all seeing eye I think its pretty fucking stupid to even claim to know, whoever you think it was.

we are obviously not going to talk about what I wanted to when I started this thread, but I cant see why you all insist on saying I believe this or I dont belive that, when I have explicitly stated otherwise several times. And doing it AGAIN RIGHT NOW.
should I put it in caps so you can see it? cuz you must have really fucking bad eyes
I'M NOT CLAIMING TO KNOW WHO IS BEHIND 9-11 AND WHATS MORE I DONT FUCKING CARE

maybe you should go start a 9-11 thread and talk about shanksville and put up videos of alex jones I dont care, but If you dont want to talk about the shifting goalposts of truth in discourse in this country, then this isnt the thread to be posting in

So, as I understand the thread:

There are a few retarded people who think that muslim extremists didn't commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Then, there are a few more people who try to pointlessly logically argue with those people, which is a waste of time because they have decided before looking at the evidence what their conclusion is going to be, so they have to bend rules of logic and shred Occam's razor to make it fit.

Finally, Sicarius refers to him/herself in the third person, and somewhat confusingly argues that muslim extremists are responsible for 9/11, but that doesn't mean we should trust the government. At least I think that's what he/she said. There was some debate about the misuse of the third person plural pronoun that confused the issue.

Do I have that basically right?

Please provide evidence that the "goalposts of truth in discourse" have shifted.

You don't give a shit about speaking and writing correctly? This isn't some shall/will parsing going on here, it's simple pronouns for goodness sakes. It hurts whatever point you are trying to make and makes you look either stupid or a slave to the most meaningless sort of political correctness. Languages have rules, and if you don't follow them then you are speaking or writing incorrectly. It's wrong to use a singular they like you did.

If you still have questions about 9/11, then that means you still want to have questions.

sigh

I believe that this was most emphatically NOT Richard Clarke's original testimony. It seems to me that the overwhelming evidence points to the Tampa flight heading for the horse sales at Lexington when the no-fly zone was in place ( a further reference http://web.archive.org/web/20040708051711/http://www.houseofbush.com/). Craig Unger is particularly good on the reasons behind this and I recommend that anyone who is generally curious look up the Carlyle Group (http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-texte/g-notes/BinLaden-Carlyle.htm) for an insight. Furthermore, the point still not addressed is the evidence provided by Tampa airport itself.

Finally put yourself in the shoes of someone charged with investigating 9/11, would you really be happy with the mass exodus of important Saudis so soon after the event?