A helpful hint to "truthers"

Wouldn't it help if you actually bothered to read the 9/11 Commission Report, rather than rely on someone else to tell you what they think it says? I read it when it first came out and decided to reread it currently to refresh my memory of certain facts and events. What I notice is that many of the questions raised by "truthers" over and over are often answered directly within the Report. For example, it sure heightens suspicions of "truthers" that "19 young arabs managed to totally defeat our air defenses" until you read and realize that, for a number of reasons, the most notice the military had of any hijacking was 9 minutes before AA 11 slammed into the WTC.

Now, you can take issue with the report on any number of grounds and I respect that. But, wouldn't a good starting point be to read the actual report first, rather than indict it without bothering to read it?

You've never actually read the Report but you know it's fiction, right?

Help who? Me? How will it help me if I believe it's an end to a means? I mean, if I believe, as I do, that the report is propaganda designed to cover the perps' asses, how does it "help" me to have read it?

However, a concession just for you, duder. I'll concede that if I'm going to continue to engage this debate that I should, as you have, take the opportunity to read it again to refresh my memory since you Believers insist on referring to it as if it were legitimate. The problem the first time I approached it was that I didn't read it cover to cover but instead skipped around. I became discouraged when I realized that it was a bunch of bullshit and especially when I found that it didn't mention the one thing I wanted to know about the most and that is it's failure to address WTC 7. I expected the report to answer questions, not create more. It was due to those questions that I decided that my initial instinct on 9/11/01 that the buildings were demoed was correct and that we were being spun an elaborate yarn. And, here I am.

After watching the hearings and seeing the composition of the commission, I found it hard to believe that the report would be any more veracious in its approach to 9/11 than was bush, cheney, rice, et. al. Anyways, you'll be happy to know that I'll take you up on your advice and give it a more organized and thorough reading, though what I've seen already is no better than dime store pulp fiction of yore.

Yes you. If you intend to form any kind of coherent argument that the 9-11 commission report is wrong, a cover up, incomplete, etc. you need to actually know what it says.

You may well have more exposure to what it actually contains than many here. But in general if you want to counter an argument or set of arguments you need to know what the fuck they are.

Stuff a sock in it and quit pushing government approved propaganda...the 9-11 Commission Report is a farce. Period. Deal with it.

The NIST Report is a farce, also. NIST didn't test ANY damaged steel, nor did they test for explosive residue. They built a computer model to fit in with their story of how the towers collapsed. I could make a computer model proving the moon is made of cream cheese and that fish breathe in the air and live in the clouds...

After almost 8 years you've still got nothing.... nothing but gub'mint approved propaganda...

the irony is funny. Care to look where the "truth" movement is? You are bordering on extinction - Bush is gone so the hatred that motivated many to even consider your ideas is gone. Once you shift fully into the "Obama is covering for the BFEE" mode, you will lose the rest of your credibility.

Eight years gone and you have nothing - just endless questions. Why aren't you able to answer any questions after 8 years? Why are recycling the same "smoking guns" year after year - there hasn't been a new "fact" from the truth movement in years. Why are you still completely unable to answer the question - "what exactly happened on 911?". Don't you think by now the truth movement should be able to formulate a plausible theory on exactly how 911 was pulled off?

Fact it - you are on the same path as JFK, UFOs and Bigfoot.

Until then, everyone just bought the "official story", didn't they?

Fact: You have nothing but government approved propaganda to support your side. Once you can admit & face that fact things will be different for you...

that's the fundamental flaw in your argument - the government does not have a monopoly on engineering and scientific knowledge. There are literally millions of people in the world that can evaluate truther nonsense such as CD, holographs, no planes, missiles at the Pentagon, mini-nukes with out resorting to "government propaganda".

I agree that there are plausible MIHOP scenarios that the government can cover up - that is not the case with most of the CTs advanced here.

NIST didn't test ANY damaged steel, nor did they test for explosive residue. What kind of "science" did they use to rule out controlled demolition if they only tested clean, undamaged steel?

BTW, you do know that they didn't test ANY steel from WTC 7, right?

Personally, I don't buy into the no planes theories, the mini nukes & china syndrome theories, CGI planes theories or the holograph theories.

My theory involves Cheney, Rumsfeld & the PNAC crew. Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz go way back together. They had Top Secret clearance and more likely than not had access to the Operation Northwoods file. They had plenty of time to plan 9-11 out since PNAC's inception in 1997. I don't have all the answers myself, but there are many unanswered questions about 9-11.


Peace,

Ghost

I don't need NIST to tell me that the collapse was possible due to just impact damage and fire. The truth movement, on the other hand, has yet to prove the opposite.

performed no tests on steel from the WTC. Of course, this is patently false:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/gallery/kolsky.htm

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:kYtYTEG1cvEJ:wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf+NIST+tests+of+WTC+steel&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.scribd.com/doc/295093/NIST-Mechanical-and-Metallurgical-Analysis-of-WTC-Structural-Steel

http://firechief.com/news/nist-tests-wtc9835/

You would think "truthers" would be smart enough to at least fact-check their goofy claims before making themselves look bad.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It has been proven, time and again, that the steel that needed to be inspected to determine the causes of the collapse was never inspected to the degree necessary to establish why the collapses took place.

The OCT is quite full of pseudo science. It is time all that was left behind and the truth be adhered to. Enough bullshit. Enough making excuses for the science not being established. It wasn't and it may never be, someone made sure of that. Why did they, and who did obstruct the science is all that matters now.

Somehow I doubt it.

And what is most important is that they didn't even begin the study until a year after the incident. After most of the steel had been carted away.

The NIST, bless their hearts, was at a grave disadvantage right out of the gate. I'm sure they did they best they could, but they were severely hindered from doing a sound and completely scientific study of all the factors involved.

you'd know that NIST, as well as other agencies, preserved the steel they thought was important to the degree they could. You keep repeating this meme in hopes that the more gullible among us will buy your myth that no steel was preserved. For the record, I seriously doubt that you have even read the report or you wouldn't make such egregiously misinformed statements.

"...preserved the steel they thought was important to the degree they could."

But most of it was already melted. The Families, whom, I have more faith in than someone here, and who were on top of things, are the ones who "keep repeating this meme" that not nearly enough steel was preserved.

And are you calling me a liar?

No, dude...show me where I did.



With all due respect, I don't believe you or any of the families are structural engineers. I'll take the word of Gene Corley and others over yours anyday. Part of the recovery/cleanup teams consisted of firms with specific controlled demolition expertise. They stated uncategorically that they saw no evidence or aftermath of controlled demolition. In response, some of the "truth movement" have chosen to demonize them to. Maybe this will resolve itself when you realize that others have just as much interest in the truth as you do and reject your goofy claims for lack of evidence.

Now you are just absurd. Devoid of any serious examination of the facts as established by people who were there in NYC and who's only interest is the truth, you keep denying anything that contradicts the OCT.

Why were those who have expertise in CD on the site, when others with science expertise were denied admittance. Even the FBI was denied!! Thanks for that, really makes ya wonder why Corley was allowed in there.

Really, your 'Goofy claims' bullshit is staining you.

You think that's suspicious?

Your claim that the FBI was denied access to Ground Zero is absolute bullshit.





http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/about/about_makingof.html

This is why I have so little respect for you and your goofy claims, BeFree. You can't manage to even get basic facts straight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=250020&mesg_id=250020

democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=250020&mesg_id=250020

Former FBI Acting Director Thomas Pickard said that the FBI wanted to take over Ground Zero and make it a crime scene as was done at the Pentagon. If that had occurred all materials from the scene would have been protected until an investigation was complete. Pickard also stated that you, Mayor Giuliani, would not allow the FBI access to the pit area. Is this accurate? If so, then what was your reason for keeping the nation’s chief investigatory team—the FBI, out of Ground Zero?

questions from the families. Did it ever occur to you that the families got some of their facts wrong?

http://wtc.nist.gov/comments/RedwoodCityCA_LarryDorshkind_07-26-05.pdf

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/cancel.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4373627/&usg=__f5tyKiGxagcvzFu6NJdzJa8jwro=&h=275&w=417&sz=13&hl=en&start=1&sig2=OfqO_A5XCOEMhNAhX3cohw&tbnid=6ht7FevJxmu9rM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bof%2BFBI%2Bagents%2Bat%2BGround%2BZero%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff&ei=UUYxSpCaD4zaMe7j4MoH



Your claim that no FBI agents were allowed access to Ground Zero is absurd on its face, BeFree and evidence of your flawed thinking skills.

The families claim the FBI was not allowed into the pit area. On the scene..around about, yes. In the pit area, the families say no. 7 years later they still have it on their site. If they were wrong they'd a took it down. Are you calling the families liars?

Look, you have been debunked over and over again. It's too easy. Come back when I'm ready. C'ya.

Is this your new meme, BeFree? When pushed into a corner, start wildly accusing me of accusing others of lying?

Where would the people citing the presence of the FBI agents have been talking about? Somewhere on the periphery? Your claim is not holding water and that's why your "movement" is dying a slow death.

however, if he's talking about WTC 7, the problem was the various investigation teams were unable to unambiguously identify any steel from 7. I'm not sure I find that all that mysterious or sinister.

Your first goofy claim was that there was no body of water named Indian Lake, it was just a community with that name. When you were proven wrong about that you then made the goofy claim that no debris was found IN the lake, just in the community. When you were proven wrong about that, you whined and put me on ignore. I'd ignore you but someone has to correct your goofy claims (disinformation)... the same with your other buddy... you know, Mr. "the lake is only YARDS AWAY from the impact crater"...

it is very worrying that the military weren't prepared for such an attack.

They knew that military exercises were to be used as a cover for 9/11 being an inside job. Think General Myers got promoted
for being UNprepared?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

when I mean the military I mean the bulk of it. Whether the top dogs had any part of the attacks - we are about to find out.

Wouldn't it help if you actually bothered to read The Terror Timeline, rather than rely on someone else to tell you what they think it says? I read it when it first came out and decided to reread it currently to refresh my memory of certain facts and events. What I notice is that many of the questions raised by "OCT'ers and Disinformants" over and over are often answered directly within the Timeline. For example, we know that "OCT'ers and Disinformants" want everyone to believe that "19 young arabs managed to totally defeat our air defenses" until they read and realize that, for a number of reasons, the military would have stopped the attacks if they hadn't been systematically diverted and stood down on 911.

Now, you can take issue with the Timeline on any number of grounds, but it's pretty tough to do. And, wouldn't a good starting point be to read the Timeline first, rather than indict it without bothering to read it?

n/t

People who "believe" and promote the OCT indirectly indict The Terror Timeline by default.

It would be nice for someone to try to directly indict the Timeline since it's nothing but a historical record of mostly media reporting.

Good luck, you'll need it.

How is anyone here "indirectly" promoting your strawman "OCT"? Again, have you actually READ the 9/11 Commission Report?

no one is arguing that there are no plausible MIHOP theories - no real evidence or smoking guns but certainly plausible. But none of that has any relevance to CD, no planes, mini-nukes and all the nonsense that we spend 90 percent of the time arguing about here.

If you want to argue that there is a serious side to the truth movement and a wacko side go ahead - but judging from this forum, the wackos are the face of the movement and if you want any credibility you need to reign in your more imaginative brethren.

"...no one is arguing that there are no plausible MIHOP theories -"

Ok, if that is true, post a plausible MIHOP theory on GD and see how long before its back here. Just as a test. Of course I am not advising you to do so, because I know better than to flagrantly violate the rules. Because I know the rules.

But were a newbie to do such a thing - with absolute ignorance - we'd see there is an argument against a plausible MIHOP.

Anyway, I find it somewhat surprising to read such a thing coming from someone on that side. Just Surprising. Carry on.

1. Skinner doesn't like any conspiracies in GD - it is not just 911.

2. Any serious discussion of 911 degenerates quickly as the more imaginative Truthers throw in their two cents worth.

Got any evidence to back up that assertion? Did you hold some survey or poll? Where's your statistics?





Contrare, there's plenty of mostly circumstantial evidence of MIHOP. The CT that doesn't have any real evidence or smoking guns is the official one, and the fact that what should be a plethora of evidence (if it was true) has not been shown is damning in and of itself.





Again, you need to show us some numbers when you claim something like this. I spend zero time debating anything nonsense. And how do we know how much of this "nonsense" is coming from disinformants and not real truthers? After all the CIA spends 3/4 of it's resources on disinfo.





you need to get out more, DU used to be a hi profile cutting edge 911 forum, in addition to politics, it has been suppressed for unknown reasons. Judging from this forum is too small of a sample and would be highly inaccurate.

And again, show us some numbers on wackos being the face of the movement, otherwise it's just baseless conjecture. And even if you have numbers, how many of those "wackos" are disinformants and how many are real? Remember 3/4 of CIA is disinfo.





How do you suggest we "reign in" CIA disinformants?

Unless you can somehow prove this, this is just more of your bullshit, Kalun.

I think the truth movement shot themselves in the foot right out of the gate with the Loose Change kids spouting ideas like controlled demolition, "pods", and what not. 9/11, as it happened, could've been an inside job with BushCo behind the wheel, financing the hijackers or whatever. But movies about money trails don't sell as many DVDs or get as many hits on YouTube as outlandish claims like thermite and missiles do. They're also a lot harder to "research" using video and photos on the internet from mom and dad's basement.

Once the LC crew rose to their leadership position in the movement, it was only a matter of time before other wanna-bes sought to one-up them with more and more ludicrous claims.

in the real (non-internet world that is.) Step away from the internet and it is clear that 911 is a non issue. We had an election where it was a complete non-issue. It has had no impact at all on popular culture - no movies, songs, etc. No one is talking about it except on a tiny corner of the internet.

Take a look at the Birther movement - it is a mirror of the 911 movement. Just as many here despised Bush and thought him capable of anything, they hate Obama and think him capable of anything.

Where you keep coming up with this stuff and actually thinking you have any credibility anymore amazes me. You claim:

"No one is talking about it except on a tiny corner of the internet"

Uhm, Obama, in Egypt, last week.
Obama, in Egypt, last week.
Obama, in Egypt, last week.

Is that clear? I can repeat it again if you don't understand that Obama, in Egypt, last week, talked about 9/11, to the world!!

911 truthers must be having some kind impact if the chosen one feels it necessary to try to counter their views.

Uhh, so hack, is Obama "no one"?

"If someone dismisses our goofy claims, we must be having an impact"

Was that no one was talking about it. That claim is false.

If we are having no impact, what the fuck are you doing here arguing with us?

You keep denying we are doing anything but you do so without any basis.

Oh, while your at it, define "Truther".

not the reality that we were attacked on 9/11. If you are having an impact, where is all the buzz about the "truth movement"?

"truther" (bracketed in irony quotation marks) is someone who professes to want to uncover the truth about 9/11 and, in the process, discards or ignores evidence that contradicts their claims. A perfect example would be someone who claims to know that the 9/11 Commission Report is nothing but propaganda who has not, in fact, even read the report. Got it?

"...in the real (non-internet world that is.) Step away from the internet and it is clear that 911 is a non issue. "

Is Obama not real world? 9/11 was an issue Obama brought up. Typical OCTers delusions on display.

Obama was dissing YOUR movement. Do you get that?

But hack was deluded, right?

n/t

As for the evidence, the only people I see denying evidence that contradicts the OCT are those who believe the OCT is the end of the story.

It is claimed that the people who question the OCT are wrong because they don't believe the OCT.

The only way 'truther' can be defined is this way: People who don't believe the concoction from Bushco and the media. IOW: The OCT.

Funny how we see that those who have complete and utter faith in the OCT can't even decide whether what they believe is official or not.

And Obama knows we are here. He knows it and tried to get us to shut up. We are getting somewhere.

First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win. Progress.

Let me make sure I get this straight. The fact that Obama thinks your claims are baseless means you're "getting somewhere". That reminds me of the guy who asked a woman to marry him. When she responded that there was no way in hell she would ever marry him, he concluded the opposite, otherwise she would not go out of her way to turn him down so resolutely. Excuse me while I take a second to regain my composure.

Okay. BeFree...the problem with trying to reason with you is your tendency to oversimplify complicated subjects and present everything as either-or (which, ironically, is what Bush did after 9/11 with his "you're either with us or against us" jingoism). Your notion of an "OCT" is nothing more than a rhetorical device to save you from actually having to argue anything by lumping the disparate issues into a nice little bundle, then pretending that anyone who dares disagree with you obviously supports said "OCT" when you have no basis to conclude anything other than they disagree with your goofy claims.

Let us know when you "win".

That was a stretch, Marriage proposals? Goooofffeee.

What report do you believe is the one that justifies the invasion of Afghanistan? What do you call it?

Is the OCT as I call it, really, as you call it, just "disparate issues"?

Why is it no one can bring themselves to be attached to the OCT?
What is it about the OCT that repulses them?
I know what repulses me, why is anyone else denying their support?

Although I wish someone other than Bush had been President, I would have supported Gore in a similar way had he chosen to do so. Maybe you don't think the Taliban is dangerous. I do.



Because the "OCT" is an invention of your mind.

You think Bush was justified in invading Afghanistan. Why?

What judicial reasoning is there for that?

As much as I despised Bush, I felt he had little choice. I'd love to see you defend the Taliban.

The Taliban said show us the proof and we will deliver him.

Powell siad we would have a paper out soon with the details. Never happened.

The FBI never charged OBL.

Damn, sport, it was all concocted. Only a very few still believe that bullshit!!

Do you really believe that the Taliban cooperated after 9/11? Where is your proof of that?

Where is your proof OBL did it? You don't have it.
If you did, you'd have posted it a hundred times, whereas the idea that the Taliban did indeed offer up OBL does have a hundred posts. Maybe they were posted before you ever heard of 9/11? It's only been 8 years.

Look, the debunker, has been debunked. And you're getting nowhere. C'ya.

Do you have proof that the Taliban offered up bin Laden or not? Do you even see how your claim contradicts your larger claim? Why would the Taliban even offer up bin Laden?

Have you seen the tapes where bin Laden talks about how the attacks were planned? Is that not a confession? Are these tapes all faked?

The Bin Laden "confession" videos are TOTALLY FAKE.

I've seen these tapes straight off government sites, they are not Bin Laden, they are Bin Laden look-a-likes.

Would you like to see the evidence of that and some screen grabs?

Don't you find it curious that "Bin Laden" has given up videos and is now resorting to audio tapes? LOLZ!

Several posts have been made in this thread with putative proof of your claim that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to the US if the US would provide proof of bin Laden's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

But, upon closer examination, this "evidence" does not nearly prove your claims; in fact, in a number of cases they conflict with your claims and even contradict them. The sloppiness of the "truth movement" is a continuing problem for its credibility.

As correctly pointed out by OTOH, the Taliban did not "offer" to turn bin Laden over, they said they would discuss or consider it. That doesn't sound like an offer to me. More importantly, they are not talking about offering to hand him over to the US, they are talking about handing him over to a third party country, not the US.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/10/14/us-attack.htm

More importantly, the Taliban had already reneged on similar "offers" as recently as 1998. Beyond that, the issue was not merely the presence of bin Laden in Afghanistan. According to Indian Intelligence, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban had allowed al Qaeda to establish over 120 training camps in Afghanistan:



http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Al_Qaeda_training_camps

As far as your silly claim that the FBI "never charged" bin Laden with respect to 9/11, this is just more evidence of your ignorance of how our government actually works. The FBI doesn't "charge" suspects in crimes. That's the function of the DOJ; the FBI is, as their name suggests, an investigative agency. Of course, bin Laden was ALREADY on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List BEFORE 9/11.


Much is also made of bin Laden's initial denial of involvement in 9/11. But, is that really all that unexpected, given the circumstances? Not really. With the United States putting pressure on the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and the Taliban having already warned bin Laden about such activity while he was a "guest" in their country, are you really surprised that bin Laden would initially deny involvement or that the Taliban would go through the motions of asking for evidence of his involvement?

I have no problem with "asking questions". But I think treating the Taliban like they're some sort of innocuous bystander is a tad naive, "sport".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And what style of logic might that be? Or, is this just more of your hand-waving?

you can also drop the "Bushco" bullshit.

Are proven terrorists who have killed thousands of people.

to quit trying to tie me to "Bushco". I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to the US if the US could provide credible proof that bin Laden was involved in the attacks of 9-11. How you guys get away with continually posting factual inaccuracies is beyond me...





There were also negotiations BEFORE the invasion, but you do some of your own homework for once so you at least know what the fuck you're talking about.

Do you have any more factual inaccuracies you need straightened out??

If he spends all his time reading just the 9/11 CR and forgetting anything that contradicts the CR, this is what we get. Thanks, Ghost. I just got tired of the crap.

there's a lot of it flying around. I read here a lot more than I post, but I keep a watch out for blatant factual inaccuracies like this, and then I post the real facts.

Do you ever wonder why people actively try to suppress the truth and post blatantly false information? I do, and I wonder whether they're disinformation agents or if they're just really, really uninformed and/or willfully ignorant...


Peace,

Ghost

....I don't know what to think sometimes. But when the same people keep doing the same thing over and over, it makes you wonder, at the very least what their agenda is and what are they doing here.

Shoot, the history of the Afghans saying that they would turn over OBL is not that long ago. And pretty much anybody who has been reading all there is to read about this issue knew it.

But yet they seem oblivious. Oh well.

Thanks, and Peace to you, Ghost.

I don't get the point of posting an entire article that doesn't actually support your claim. ("Willing to discuss" is a far cry from "offered to hand... over.") A head game?

Yes, they were "willing to discuss" handing bin Laden over if the US could provide credible proof that he was involved in the attacks of 9-11. Isn't that the diplomatic way to handle things?



As you can see, the Taliban wanted PROOF that bin Laden was involved, they didn't want to just hand him over because George W Bush said he was guilty. Would you think justice was being served if I demanded that someone hand YOU over to ME.. just because I said you were guilty, without me providing ANY kind of proof? That's more than slippery slope there my friend... that's a raging waterfall down to tyranny & fascism.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How many tries did it take to get you to see how wrong you were about Mecklenburg? (ETA: OK, I won't take credit for that -- probably you are constitutionally incapable of learning anything from me, so you had to figure it out some other way. Whatever.)

That colossal screw-up by the board? That was years ago, and you still think you won something? Get over yourself. It was eomer who cleared that up, not you.

You are either baiting here or you saw dude go down in flames and you're just trying to save him. Whatever. The truth is the truth. Deal with it. Be honest. The Taliban said they would have turned him over, but voting machine bubble boy said no.

No one has presented evidence of that. This is why you need to learn to read.

If they were willing to discuss turning him over it means their minds were open to the idea. If they were unwilling to turn him over, why would they even negotiate? All they wanted was credible proof. If credible proof was supplied, they wanted to turn him over to a third country.

They went from wanting to try him in Afghanistan to being willing to turn him over to a third country if provided credible evidence. Why turn over to a third country? My guess would be to ensure a fair trial. Remember that this offer came AFTER Bush's declaration of ''There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty,''

They were willing to turn him over. Period. I can't help you comprehend what you're reading, man. That's up to you. Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't make it false. The facts bear me out.


Peace,

Ghost

Read your own words.

"If they were unwilling to turn him over, why would they even negotiate?"

What, are you kidding?

However, it doesn't even matter whether we can mind-read their subjective willingness. You claimed that they offered to do it, and you haven't supported that.

As you can plainly read, the Taliban at first wanted to try him in Afghanistan... because it meant he broke the law there, as evidenced in his denial:



The Taliban wanted credible proof that bin Laden was involved. There's nothing wrong, or sinister, about that. They went from wanting to try him there to being willing to turn him over to a third (neutral) country to assure a fair trial.

Once again, would you want to be turned over to another country, just because the leader of that country says you're guilty of something without providing one shred of credible evidence that you are guilty?

Here's another question that gets avoided: Why would a terrorist deny involvement in the worst terrorist attack on US soil? Isn't that want terrorists WANT? To gain recognition so people will fear them?

The Taliban had already warned Bin Laden not to initiate any more attacks on the US from Afghanistan. That was why he denied at first being involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers, so he would not get his sorry ass kicked out of Afghanistan.

Terrorists don't gain credibility by denying involvement in their attacks. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to plan & pull off the worst terrorist attack ever on US soil, then deny involvement.

Maybe Osama doesn't like virgins? :shrug:

As I can plainly read there, the Taliban "said bin Laden could not have been involved in the terror attacks." So I doubt they intended to try him there.


If you had stuck to arguing that, I would have stayed out of the thread, despite your cheap shot.


Actually, if one can get 'credit' for doing it while evading punishment for it, that seems ideal.

If you want to debate bin Laden's role in the attacks, try sticking to reality, and see how that goes. Just a thought.

Given the facts we know, which is that the Taliban forbade launching terrorist attacks on the US and that they wanted credible evidence of bin Ladens involvement, let's follow your little snippet through to it's logical conclusion. Here's your snippet:
"the Taliban "said bin Laden could not have been involved in the terror attacks."

Now let's follow it through:
"the Taliban "said bin Laden could not have been involved in the terror attacks" ***because it's against the law to plan/carry out attacks on the US from Afghanistan. However, the Taliban said that if the US could provide credible evidence that bin Laden was involved, they would try him in Afghanistan because he broke the law there.***

The bottom line is this: the Taliban wanted PROOF that bin Laden was involved. You know, solid proof, not George W Bush's word.




No, that's just called 'being falsely accused'. If he wanted credit, he wouldn't have denied it, or would have at least stayed silent on the issue. Staying silent would have given more to the illusion of guilt than his flat out denial did.




People can make their own realities, why don't *you* try sticking to *facts* and see how *that* goes. Start by looking into the Afghanistan Invasion. Bushco used bully tactics to get the Taliban to turn over bin Laden: 'give him to us, even though we provide you no credible proof of his involvement, or we start bombing you into the stone age'. Bushco was going to invade Afghanistan one way or another, along with Iraq. Afghanistan was just the first step in the PNAC plan for 7 countries in 5 years, which we learned about through Gen. Wesley Clark's memoirs:




I, personally, would never endorse any country handing over a citizen, or "guest" of that country... as bin Laden was classified, since Saudi Arabia had stripped his citizenship and kicked him out... to another country just because the leader of that other country said he was guilty. I'd want to see credible proof, too. It's a human rights issue to me. No one should be handed over like that without credible proof, especially to a country that's already determined his guilt without evidence or a trial.

We aren't debating the merits of handing over bin Laden. We're debating whether the Taliban offered to do it. So far, the best you can do is that they set conditions for discussing it.

Yes, the Taliban indicated at various points (I believe even before 9/11) that if they had credible evidence against bin Laden, they would try him. That's obviously immaterial to your claim.

"Bushco used bully tactics to get the Taliban to turn over bin Laden...." That's true, and obviously immaterial to your claim.

Yes, it really ticks me off when people make claims, fail to support them, try to change the subject, and attack a bunch of other posters along the way. ETA: In case it isn't clear yet, if you had said something like, "Damn straight the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden, and rightly so," I'd have no issue with you at all. It's at least a plausible position.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You've consistently failed to respond to my point. I guess I figured that was inevitable.

Do you understand, at all, how justice & diplomacy works?

Let me try this one more time:

If China called us up and said 'hey, we want you to arrest OTOH and hold him for us because he launched an attack on us and we want to try him', what do you think the US response would be? It would be "ok, show us some proof he did this and we'll try him here first since he broke our laws, too', wouldn't it?

Now China says 'no, just give him to us or we'll start bombing your country. We don't need to worry about innocence or guilt, we *know* he's guilty!'. We still pressure China for proof, especially in light of these comments but China starts bombing us. What do we do now? We say 'hey, stop the bombing and we'll discuss turning him over... but we *still* want some proof'....


Yes, they're offering to hand him over now if the bombing stops.. and proof is provided. Their offer, however, is to turn him over to a third (neutral) country to assure a fair trial, since we've already declared him guilty without benefit of a trial... a huge human rights violation.

The Taliban didn't flat out refuse to hand him over, as you suggest... they wanted PROOF, and wanted to try him there first, since he broke Afghanistan law, too.

I can't help you comprehend, man... as I said before, that's up to you. Your point has been refuted too many times to continue this on any further...


Peace,

Ghost

Is there any dialect of English in which "we'll discuss turning him over" means the same thing as "(we're) offering to hand him over"? If so, where is it spoken?

How many times can you make my point while claiming to make yours? It amazes me.

Reading is much more empowering, and enjoyable, when you comprehend what you're reading. Check into it...

because their CTs are grounded in pseudo-science BS like no-planes, CD and mini-nukes.

Here's a radical thought - perhaps there are three choices: yours, the OCT and the real truth. You do understand that poking holes in the OCT is not enough - you actually have to prove your theories? Considering that eight years down the road you are still completely unable to articulate a detailed and cohesive scenario that accounts for what happened on 911, perhaps that third choice is the right one.

The OCT has holes big enough to fly a 747 thru. The only reason anyone believes it is because they are too scared to think otherwise. Yep, we truthers are scary! Boo!

Perhaps there is a third choice?

The problem is the continued belief in the OCT as the truth. With the OCT standing no alternatives get a fair hearing in the press or from the government. So, there are now but two choices: The OCT or no OCT.

That's where we are now. As long as 'No OCT' is regarded as just a bunch of, as we're called, crazies, to be dungeoned, then what ever we say is crazy.

While there are some really crazy theories, and as long as a middle ground is officially excluded, (and there remains serious reasons to keep it excluded - war, wot) then we'll get what we've got: the OCT or crazy. People do tend to act the way they are treated, eh?

So, from my viewpoint attacking the OCT in every way possible is my only way to get to the third way. I can never say that any of the OCT is to be taken as truth, because of where it comes from and because it is the biggest obstacle to the truth. It must totally fall before we can get around to a fair and reasonable investigation - the third way. People must look at the OCT and say: "No F'n way. Give me something else. "

Then, and only then does this third way have a chance.

I hope you are a patient soul.

It will happen. It is happening. Even you are beginning to question the OCT.
Others who read here and are not scared come away with a bit more disbelief in the OCT.

It won't happen just because of me, or anyone other singular person. It is a movement and even Obama knows it, that's why he mentioned it the other day. His problem is he has a war to attend to and he had to say what he said or abandon the war altogether. Either the OCT, or no war.

The third choice will happen. Or we end up killing each other.

I have no doubt that it will not involve CD, no-planes,or mini-nukes.

It isn't just OCT or no OCT. Your false dilemmas aren't convincing, BeFree.

"It isn't just OCT or no OCT."

Correct. It's FAKE 9/11 Conspiracy or Actual 9/11 Conspiracy.

Like the way that Conspiracy Deniers apparently believe that unless and until THEY say that you've done more than "poke holes"

in the Fake 9/11 Conspiracy, then you haven't proven your case? As though the burden of proof isn't on THEM to explain some of those

747-size cavities in the theory which they claim to support (but have "questions" about, if pressured to agree it's cah-cah).


They must really, really enjoy interacting with people who have "goofy" ideas. I know I do.

Look, most people would look at my post and understand that I was talking about how little traction the 911 Truth movement is getting in the real world. Obama confirms it - notice how he is not questioning the OCT or saying that there needs to be a new investigation.

those working for 9/11 Truth.

Did it escape your notice that people directly involved with 9/11 -- families,

widows -- are not satisfied . . . at all!

How corrupt was it that Bush wanted to put Henry Kissinger in charge?

Doesn't that give you a clue?

And that's only the tip of the iceberg --

A "hint" for those who evidently believe everything the government tells them . . .

we have a long history of CIA violence across the planet -- a long history of

cover-ups from JFK coup to "October Surprise" --

The government hasn't been honest with the public and it's time to acknowledge

the political violence that has put America in the hands of the violent right.

... but there's a pretty hefty jump one has to make from believing everything the government says to "inside job". CTers have this "all or nothing"/"with us or against us" approach (sound familiar?) which I personally find hugely ironic and entertaining.

No, I don't believe everything the government says.

But that's not evidence the towers were brought down by CD.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Right after I get done with the Warren Commission Report!:rofl:

that's the best way to be well informed, right?

Hi!
I did read it. But so what?
What do you make of a Commission Report if the Commissioner themselves don't think highly of their result?

What do you think of headlines like this?
Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup