The Shrine

The aerospace "hijack code" is one of the the quiet "police buttons" of the aviation world: if hijacked, a pilot is supposed to enter it into the control panels while purporting to be simply flying the plane.

Not one of the eight 9/11 pilots used it.

http://www.consensus911.org/eight-pilot ... jack-code/

So what?

What is your counter theory?

Lay it out so that we can pick it apart as the nonsense it is.

kali o. wrote:Lay it out so that we can pick it apart as the nonsense it is.

Yeah, right. Because your mind is so open, right?

Why don't you go ahead and tell me why YOU think nobody entered the hijack code?

You will notice, once again, that I didn't start the rudeness.

You did; for reasons I still can't fathom.

What is so goddamned hard about you having a discussion about this without acting like an asshole?

What rudeness? Assuming your crackpot counter theory, if any exists, is nonsense?

Then layout your theory, prove me wrong...or is all you can do is fact question and tinfoil hat?

I don't KNOW why the records are missing, Kali. I have theories, but why would I share them with you and get shit on again?

That's what I always do - then you act pretty terribly, accusing me of white power ties, Nazi ties, "blaming the Jews" - doing anything BUT discussing the theories or having the discussion IN RESPECT.

Had I to take a guess I would nominate the fact that the hijackers' records are possibly not on the original flight manifests as connected...that the planes were hijacked by quite some other agency than we were told.

More than that - you stop using words like "nonsense" and "tinfoil hat" and being a hostile jackass, and I won't do the same and be one back to you.

Bringing up the subject makes YOU so damned angry; and then I get angry back and everyone hates it all. So either we're going to discuss this like adults or we shouldn't have the discussion at all.

Well, my fault for not being clear. I actually want the ENTIRE 9/11 theory from you. But I will run with that...

So, other than the more obvious and simple explanation that, I dunno, hijackers were in control of planes quickly - you went with *guessing* that records were tampered with and covered up and planes were hijacked by "some other agency"?

Ok. Fair enough. Can you now provide me tangible proof to support your theory? I mean real solid evidence to support what you just said - not more wild theories.

Thanks.

The Jews did it.-- Replay

Try harder, Joe.

Kali - thank you for the civility. However, I don't have what you want. I don't have your "tangible proof"; no one does, because if it exists it was methodically destroyed by the Bush Administration.

NO ONE knows what happened that day - except for the aviation black boxes, presumed "destroyed" for the first time ever in avionics history. A black box can and has survived a plane that has been shot down by a missile; yet we are told that no usable fragment of the ones at the World Trade Center remain, even though Mohammed Atta's paper passport somehow did.

What has, however, been noted, is that the Pentagon attack that day resulted in a hole that is quite the wrong shape and size for a commercial jet. Once again, NO ONE knows what it actually was, except for the Pentagon, and they are not talking - but the amount of damage is in line with what would have been expected with either a missile, or a small drone with a missile payout. There are RUMORS that what was removed from the Pentagon's lawn was not a Boeing 757 engine but parts from a Douglas Skywarrior drone; and that theory is consistent with the many missing death records from that flight and United 93. (The death records from the main two flights remain.)

Then there is the fact that Atta and several other of the "hijackers" were reported to be ALIVE, AFTER the event, BY no less an agency than the BBC. Atta's father says he is alive; at least four of the other purported hijackers have been reported alive also. How did they get off the planes and escape an explosion that melted the black boxes?

There is a small apparatus visible on the underside of UA 175, in the video of the second plane striking the second Tower; I can retrieve it if you are willing to look. Again, NO ONE KNOWS what it was - but it is the right shape and location to be an external drone-control attachment, fitted on before the plane took off. Such technology was developed in the years prior to 2001.

What I will say is this : I don't believe the purported hijackers were ever on board those planes that day. The evidence we do have does not support it. Paper passports don't magically blow clear of explosions that destroy avionics black boxes; nor does the BBC report people alive - or magically report on buildings collapsing before they do - with no reason.

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." George W. Bush, May 13, 2008

I will not touch on eveyrhing you said.

We do have tangible proof - for the actual story. Lets delve a little in to your straight up falsehoods.

Black boxes were recovered. Some were destroyed. Its not, contrary to what you said, the first time such equipment has been destroyed or not recovered - far from it. It also does not take a genius to understand *most* crashes do not invlove SPEEDING up to maximize damage or a 110 story building falling down on it....

Fact: two planes hit the building.

Lol...wrong shape. Only a truther would expect a cartoon airplane hole there. We have eyewitnesses, video stills, the debris, the dead passangers (whose memory your crazy theory pisses on), the flight itself - do you realize the amount of folks required for your cover up of this ONE flight measures into the thousands...everyday people too.

Fact: a plane hit the pentagon.

Oh - and you say you do "research". His fathers story changed several times - Atta is dead, good riddance.

Fact: Terrorist flew these planes.

There is no more a magical drone attachment than there is a missle or a hologram or any of the other crazy shit people see. There is ZERO proof for this and no experts will agree with you.

Fact: The planes were real.

You only really have one thing not touched on yet...the bbc. Oh man, where to start. Is your theory the bbc were in on it? I mean...your conspiracy already requires an impossible amouny of co-conspirators...so sure, lets throw a whole foreign news agency in the mix..lol. Here is the more interesting questiin - why do you think "the bbc knew" and for what purpose?

Fact: the bbc either got the names wrong or picked up a false report (of which there were plenty that day).

Every one of my facts are supported by mountains of evidence and simple. Every one of your *claims* has no support and in some cases (like Atta), you have apparently not researched at all. I am all for questioning the big bad government, but your CONSPIRACY theory has no chance of being realistic on the simple reality of the amount of people required to pull it all off...nevermind anything else.

kali o. wrote:I will not touch on eveyrhing you said.

We do have tangible proof - for the actual story. Lets delve a little in to your straight up falsehoods.

No sources on anything you said, eh?

Burn in Hell, kali. I came at you respectfully and all you do is spit abuse.

You will never care about the murdered dead nor MY country - which is not yours.

I'm done. You are foolish and blind and will always be foolish and blind. The issue isn't a pirated TV series or a fat real estate deal; so you clearly have no interest in it - nor the victims' families still calling for a new investigation.

May the souls of the murdered dead rest on your head.

Nothing I said was a lie; but you cannot provide any sources on anything you said, nor are you willing to even try. Instead you believe in a great many things that are all designed to keep you from looking at anything that might scare you.

It's sad and shameful. You're an evil person.

Get out of American politics. You are not one of us and never will be. You're a fucking bigot. And I wear the truther label proudly.

I tried to have a respectful discussion; but YOU are not mature enough to have it.

Replay wrote:

kali o. wrote:I will not touch on eveyrhing you said.

We do have tangible proof - for the actual story. Lets delve a little in to your straight up falsehoods.

No sources on anything you said, eh?

Burn in Hell, kali. I came at you respectfully and all you do is spit abuse.

You will never care about the murdered dead nor MY country - which is not yours.

I'm done. You are foolish and blind and will always be foolish and blind. The issue isn't a pirated TV series or a fat real estate deal; so you clearly have no interest in it - nor the victims' families still calling for a new investigation.

May the souls of the murdered dead rest on your head.

Ok nutcase. I answered all of your "points" and you retreated into ...this. You are not prepared to defend any of your nonsense and frankly, I dont blame you. Your position is indefensible. But you have no excuse for your last reply and the psychopathic content therein ...

By the way - the 9/11 black boxes were reported as "found" by the 9/11 Commission - YEARS after the event. They weren't "found" until roughly the time of the Moussaoui trial in 2006-2007 - which is the same time the hijackers' names magically appeared on the flight manifests. Thus I stand by my position - the real ones were destroyed by the Bushes with the rest of the evidence.

How do black boxes just magically appear after five fucking years, Kal?

Even so, that same 9/11 Commission CALLED FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION - particularly Beverly Eckert. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations denied them one.

Her plane FELL OUT OF THE SKY.

But you don't care.

Senator Wellstone questioned the Bush Administration in 9/11 back in 2002. His plane fell out of the sky too.

But you don't care.

Because there is no "proof" of wrongdoing, those patriots will never get justice. Anyone who has been paying attention knows the Bushes goddamned well murdered them; but you will never care. You have been selfish, manipulative and as long as I've known you - incapable of an ounce of real respect, but you'll certainly run and hide and accuse others of "not respecting you".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness#Psychology

And save ME the inevitable comments about "getting help".

I've had it; it doesn't help, nor explain to me why people like you are cold, selfish, and uncaring; nor why you interfere in my country and help to murder its political process. There is no reason for me to pay a hundred dollars an hour or more for a psychologist to reaffirm what I already know - that the world is full of assholes, and surrounding myself with assholes is a bad idea. I came at you perfectly respectfully here; but you are not capable of returning it.

Go back to your "terrorist envy" and stay out of the United States' politics.

My grandfather gave his life's work for this country and I won't see it destroyed by the Bush Administration - nor an investigation hindered by a sociopathic Canadian realtor who threatened to lie about me in court if I mentioned your history of piracy to anybody.

Get help for YOUR sins - your apathy, your disaffect, your lack of empathy for anyone but yourself and your circle.

And leave 9/11 to those who care.

kali o. wrote:
Ok nutcase. I answered all of your "points" and you retreated into ...this. You are not prepared to defend any of your nonsense and frankly, I dont blame you. Your position is indefensible. But you have no excuse for your last reply and the psychopathic content therein ...

Quote some sources, Kali! I did!

If you won't, get out of the discussion and leave it to those who are prepared to source their evidence!

You are addicted like HEROIN to distraction - which is why you turned a blind eye while this site became a pirate bay. You might care if someone made a TV series about the attacks, I think, but not until then.

YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT AMERICA, NOR OUR MURDERED DEAD. AND UNTIL YOU DO, STAY IN CANADIAN POLITICS AND LEAVE OURS ALONE.

I really was hoping for a civilized discussion this time.

But if the BEST I can get from you is you shutting your ignorant mouth on the subject, I will take it as a win. You clearly don't care about my country one bit.

Like everything else, most of what you say is wrong. But even if it were not (for the sake of arguement), there is always a more simple alternative to your "theories" that are also supported by evidence.

- black boxes didn't "just appear". You might be confused by the cockpit recording term. Either way, sometimes information is declassified. So what?

- lol...there is security footage of the terrorists boarding. Your *facts* are not even based in reality. Why do you pretend to have researched this stuff?

- another case of you having zero proof for your crazy theories. You found two people that died - grats. You even mischaracterize senator wellstone to support your silliness. Here is the better question - what is gained by killing these people. Answer: nothing (at least nothing provable, but you'll pretend it was for the control of the senate and Wellstone was targeted...just because).

Dont misunderstand, I am not engaging you here. You dont deserve that respect, thats clear. I am just answering for the heck of it. As for"evidence", I am confused why you would want it...you must already know the evidence, after all, you have dismissed the official story on your careful consideration of the evidence...right? Right?

So what evidence are you asking for?

Kali, I asked you for a respectful debate and you broke your word. All you have done is get mad and talk shit. It makes me hate even trying.

When I started doing research in 2009 there were hardly any stories showing the existence of the black boxes at all. Did you check the dates on the black-box stories? They start showing up very late in the process. I saw one from 2011, one in 2013 - MAYBE one from 2006-2007 when that story first showed up during the Moussaoui trial.

How did the black boxes just show up after five years?

Why do you pretend to have researched it? When have you researched it? Every time I bring something up all you do is lazily Google something, talk shit, and stop looking. I put five years into this.

Why can't YOU have a respectful debate without using ad hominem attacks?

You talk shit, act like an asshole, put people down, act like a thug and a bully - then you say I don't deserve respect.

But you clearly won't hear it from me.

Go tell the victims' families they don't deserve a new investigation.

http://9-11cc.org/911-families-for-new-investigation/

I am sorry that my government got away with murdering three thousand people; even sorrier that they managed to pull the wool over your eyes.

I am also sorry you can't have a discussion about this without breaking your own stated principles on respect.

I remember that I refused to hear truthers for years too; didn't understand why people were so stridently telling me I was wrong.

I understand it now.

I hope one day you do too.

I skimmed...saw more crazy attacks and random tangents. Not interested.

And you are wrong. Flight 77 was declassified as early as 2002 and more was released at the trial. Your..."research" methods are obviously deeply flawed...this is your area of expertise, after all...lol. Between this, your Atta comment and your history, I don't believe you have ANY ability to successfully disseminate information.

You haven't provided any tangible evidence for me to discredit. Your theories have no substance. You know it...deep down, that's why you are pretending you were attacked and lashing out.

It's pathetic. No joke. Stop before you embarrass yourself further.

And AGAIN, what evidence do you want. You should clearly know my evidence -- you reject the official story through study. I am waiting.

You wouldn't know truth if it fell on you. Tell it to the victims' families - the ones calling for a new investigation. Let them tell you how wrong you are.

You have proven over and over that you'll denigrate and lie when you get angry. You said my family was "full of nobodies" when I mentioned my grandfather's work, as I recall. No, I won't stop. The Bush Administration and Mossad attacked my country; and that country is not yours.

I've often found that there is a serious correlation between how much of an angry bully someone is and how much they deny 9/11 truth. You've been one as long as I've known you.

The only way I embarrass myself is in letting you make me an angry bully in return.

Of course there is evidence of wrongdoing. But you don't want to see it. You have denied everything I've ever brought up as false; refused to look at anything I present - you're scared ot.

Get help. You're uncaring, aggressive, manipulative, and have been as long as I've known you.

Truthers are treated as if we are no longer human.

It's sad.

I will continue to speak the truth; and you can be as unkind as you want to be.

*shrug*

You sure do get crazy when asked to back up claims. Maybe you should make an effort not to discuss these things here, since you are incapable of self control...?

At least I back mine up. Where are your sources? Any of them?

Where'd the $2.3 trillion go?

What about the five Israeli Mossad men caught filming the attacks?

Why did Bush say he'd be long gone before someone figured out what happened?

Why can't you answer any of my questions?

Replay wrote:Where'd the $2.3 trillion go?

What about the five Israeli Mossad men caught filming the attacks?

Why did Bush say he'd be long gone before someone figured out what happened?

Why can't you answer any of my questions?

For a third (and final) time, what evidence would you like? You should already KNOW all my evidence, since any sane person would have considered it before dismissing the accepted story.

As to your questions:

- dunno. Seems solved. I am not here to audit the DoD though and fail to see the connection to 911.
- dunno. Is your theory now that Bush included a foreign country in the conspiracy? My my, the conspiracy is just more crowded the longer you rant....who ISNT involved?
- its a bush-ism and low hanging fruit, even for you. Its also a quote completely out of context, so try researching for once...
- I have...

You really need to quit while you are behind...

"Seems solved"? Really?

Do you mean "seems solved" or "I don't care"?

That's not a discussion; that's an excuse not to discuss it. Where do you think the money went? Look up "Able Danger".

And you end with more derogatory comments.

You haven't been in fact mode for hours now. I have asked you to provide sources on your claims and you provide none.

What's the point of even arguing? All you'll do is talk a bunch of shit and then refuse to look at anything. Nothing new under the sun.

kali o. wrote: For a third (and final) time, what evidence would you like? You should already KNOW all my evidence, since any sane person would have considered it before dismissing the accepted story.

ANY.

What I'll expect are the NIST report written by Chertoff's nephew and 911myths.com - the two sources everyone uses to provide an excuse not to think about it.

And more trash-talk, since you can't control your temper for shit.

I am still not sure what you want me to support with evidence, it is the official accepted story. Be specific...what claim are you asking me to support??

Anything you want, kali. You just haven't sourced ONE THING yet.

....be intentionally obtuse all you want. It makes it easy for me to ignore your (silly) request. I suppose, before I tune you out, I will use your own evidence to mock your claim. In your bbc link about the terrorist identities, there is an update (and additional stories) that clarify and change what you wanted to prove...

You will ignore that, however, because it doesnt fit your narrative and you are not actually interested in truth...

Goodnight...mental.

Oh, what a surprise.

Rather than source anything, you talked a bunch of shit and ran away.

I can't say I'm surprised.

kali o. wrote:It makes it easy for me to ignore your (silly) request.

You were never going to do anything else.

kali o. wrote:Goodnight...mental.

Goodnight, kali. I'm sorry you've never grown up and learned to respond to these discussions with anything other than abuse.

*shrug*

I could just be me...I dunno. But wanting clarification of what you were asking for seemed like a reasonable request. As it is, I find it funny that Joe's earlier response really did sum up your view. (..but call it Mossad if you prefer) and the thread really could have ended there.

Out of curiosity...did you look further into that bbc link and see the updates? Does that satisfy you that the point you were making is debunked? If not...why?

Because the "update" is five years later and cites no primary sources or investigative reporting at all.

All they did is ask the FBI, and in response the FBI says they "positively identified" the hijackers.

Do you know what a primary source is? Do you accept all secondary sources as if they were primary?

Here's the first story. It cites many names, places, other publications - in short, it is legitimate investigative journalism. Even the FBI in this initial report admits doubt as to the hijackers' identities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

Here are later updates. They cite only the FBI as source material - who have now "identified" all of the hijackers. And as the "update" trail goes on, the actual investigative journalism becomes less and less, until it finally shrinks to nothing at all but a restatement of the official FBI story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theed ... ory_1.html

Here is a Guardian article from 2002 in which Atta's father was interviewed, stating that he was alive.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/s ... mber11.usa

Everything you believe rests on the authority of the official government investigators. But proof by authority is not authority, kali, and never will be. The FBI lies to you when it is convenient; so does the CIA. That should not even be in question, if you know any American history at all. Authority is not a substitute for real investigative journalism; nor primary-source material. Atta's father is a primary source. The interviews cited in the initial investigation with Arab newspapers, with the supposed "dead" hijackers, are primary sources as well. The FBI is not.

Indeed in 2014, a Tampa Bay news station ran a story claiming that Senator Bob Graham had accused the FBI of covering up no less than *eighty thousand pages* of material on 9/11-related issues. I quote from the article:

"After having said there were 'no' documents about the investigation in Sarasota, 'no' has now become 80,000 pages." Graham adds,"I think that should be stunning to the American people, that an agency of our government would deceive its own people so dramatically."

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/investig ... /15456013/

You really have to realize that EVERYTHING you believe in as "evidence" comes from a set of government agencies - most of whom are fundamentally tainted if indeed there is a coverup in place. The NIST report, the FBI's "official" lists of hijackers, all the information widely released to the media - if indeed the Bush Administration was lying to us, every single one of those pieces of evidence is inadmissible.

You may also recall that the 9/11 Commission was handpicked by George W. Bush personally; and that the Steering Committee - made largely up of actual wives of victims - was initially stonewalled, and later highly critical of the process.

"The phenomenon has sufficiently alarmed the White House that earlier in the month its media allies tried to discredit the 9/11 families, particularly the so-called 'Jersey Girls,' the four telegenic suburban widows who have forced the administration to reverse its stonewalling of the 9/11 commission at nearly every juncture." --Frank Rich, New York Times, 2004

There was an entry by Senator Graham in the Huffington Post asking for a new 9/11 investigation back in 2012 - its entry visible on Google's search engines still - but the actual article has gone the way of the actual rubble from that day; it has utterly vanished, and is now nowhere to be found. But you can see its residue here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+ ... estigation

It shares this with George W. Bush's quote in Ha'aretz from May 2008 - "I'll be long gone before some smart person figures out what happened in this Oval Office" - long gone from its publication as well, though it lives on in the dozens of sites that cited it while it was still active.

Do you never wonder why anyone who actually gets close to this thing reports on stonewalling and a coverup of documents?

You added too much (I realize this is a common truther tactic)...so back on target.

The bbc updated THAT article because truthers were using it to fuel their conspiracy claims...like you just did. Between the time of the article and the update, the bbc had plenty of other stories...that conveniently are not referenced because they don't fit the conspiracy.

So...bbc had an article that was used by truthers....and they (the bbc) addressed it in an update. You are more that willing to take the original story as factual...so why not the update? Two reasons. One, it doesn't fit the narrative if you do (selective). Two, the bbc is now in on the conspiracy (that makes the scenario all the more unlikely, as you now have added even more co-conspirators).

You have an untenable position - it is impossible to sustain secrecy in even the most simple of truther "plots" - and the number required grows as each piece of counter evidence is dismissed as being fabricated.

The truther position isn't the government acting unethically or mismanaging funds (intentionally or unintentionally) - it's:

Murder of Civilians, Attacking own assets, Energy Weapons, Basement Nukes, Controlled Demo of 250+ floors that NO ONE SAW SET UP, holograms that fool millions, missiles that look like planes, kidnappings, fake Osama lookalikes, fake security footage, fake terrorists, made up passengers with actors playing grieving family, scripts given to news agencies, some insurance scam (that doesn't even cover the loss), etc, etc, etc.

The truther position does not demand a handful of co-conspirators, it demands:

Millions of eyewitnesses to be mistaken, entire news agencies to be complicit, technology most experts only pretend do not exist, 1000's of WTC staff to be blind or brainwashed, hundreds of actors, support of foreign intelligence agencies and leaders, 1000's involved in the investigation afterwards, etc.

The scope is so large, it becomes silly. And see...here is the real issue. The justification for war could have been made without requiring so many operators and murdering civilians. It could have been a single plane hijacked and shot down. It could have been a single reported missile strike from Iraq. It could have been a single bombed embassy.

911 changed a lot. I have no doubt it even benefited some parties. But it was not required to start a war, a war that has bankrupted your country.

You give your government a hell of a lot of credit. Almost supernatural credit. You think the "jews" are almost mystical in their ability to manipulate the world (the same folks who have trouble countering underfunded Palestinian propaganda). Your whole position is silly. And yes, to a certain extent, I believe it's a bit of a mental illness (the need to control...the need to believe you are controlled...I am not positive).

Finally...looking up, I see you quoted bush AGAIN. I already told you to put in in context. You seem to believe it is Bush...providing a clue that he was up to no good and folks won't figure it out for years. Why do you think that? Do you not honestly understand there would be NO REASON for him to do so and your framing of the quote makes ZERO sense? If you don't understand that, then anything I say will not make sense to you -- because you are simply not processing information correctly. And everyone here will agree with that. Everyone.

/shrug

So, once again, I see no sources from you whatsoever.

By all means put him in context - if you can find the text of the original article, now completely redacted.

By all means tell me what context EXISTS that could possibly make a statement like "I'll be long gone before some smart person happens to figure out what happened in this Oval Office" innocuous.

I read the original article - I will assume you have not, since you don't recognize the quote? It was indeed a rather mild discussion of Israeli-Palestinian issues originally; which is what made that non sequitur so surprising and shocking even within its initial context.

But "no reason to do so?" Really? I can think of about $350 billion dollars worth of reasons; as that is how much the Defense budget increased on a PERMANENT basis after the PNAC's proposed "revolution in military affairs" passed - the same one that said it would be hard to pass without a "New Pearl Harbor". That also figure does not reflect the $60b yearly received by Homeland Security, which did not exist before 9/11, nor the increase in funding to many other supplementary agencies related to Defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Pearl_Harbor

Do you think that there are no politicians out there who might consider $350 billion dollars a year worth killing for?

As for "technology that most experts only pretend do not exist" - first of all, that's one Hell of a Freudian slip you just made there; I will assume you meant "most experts say do not exist", for the sake of discussion - as I am not fond of deliberately mischaracterizing your words as you are mine.

However, you are wrong; I have never posited the existence of energy weapons, "brainwashed or blind WTC staff" - or that millions of eyewitnesses were mistaken. But drone control for commercial aircraft unquestionably did exist before 9/11, as well as controlled demolitions for skyscrapers - and that is the ONLY technology set I have EVER posited to be used in the event that is not already part of the known landscape.

And I have also never mentioned "the Jews" once. Of all the distortions YOU introduce into this discussion, that one is the most distasteful to me.

Go find any thread in the history of the board in which I refer to "the Jews manipulating the world" before you continue with that line of thinking - find ONE in which I said "Jews" as opposed to being very specific about the Israeli government, kali. I don't think you will be able to; and if you don't, I'm not even going to give you the time of day in responding to that one. Indeed that particular smear of yours is getting old; though I will forgive you - because I truly believe you actually do believe (wrongly) that I am an anti-Semite; you are not particularly capable of drawing a distinction between criticism of the Israeli government and "anti-Semitism" - even though I haven't even mentioned the ISRAELIS once on this THREAD; other than mentioning Ha'aretz, which is the newsmagazine Bush's quote originally appeared in.

But now I am once again forced to bring up the ISRAELIS - because on the issue of "no one seeing the setup" of the potential controlled demolition - of course people saw it! People saw the Israeli "art student" ring and Urban Moving Systems moving equipment into the towers for a month beforehand! But YOU don't see it - because you don't WANT to see it, Kali.



The problem I have with you is that you consider "truthers" to be this monolithic block of crazed lunatics, all positing the existence of aliens, holograms instead of actual planes giant lasers, and a giant manipulative Jew conspiracy. I have met plenty of people inside the movement who fit that characterization - and I don't like them any better than you do. They provide YOU an excuse to deny those of us who are suggesting only that drone control was used on the planes before takeoff, that the towers were brought down by demolition assisted by that "art student" ring I mentioned, and that the Bush Administration ordered the FBI and CIA to provide media cover for it all - all in order to secure that extra $350,000,000,000 per year in Defense funding, advocated by the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" policy paper in 2000 that DOES mention that such funding would be hard to secure without a "New Pearl Harbor".

I see means, motive, and opportunity for the Bush Administration all throughout that set of events.

And if I were you, Kali, I would already have referred to the fact that you claim no one saw evidence of controlled demolition or suspicious activity around the Towers beforehand as a "falsehood" and used that to put you down - but I'm not going to.

The issue is too important, and the one thing we seem to be able to agree on is that the aftereffects HAVE hurt my nation terribly.

A lot I can pick apart here, as usual, but I will focus on the important aspect.

If you fail to understand why your "bush-ism" would not be delivered in the manner in which you suggest, you will not understand ANYTHING anyone tries to tell you about your positions because your ability to process information is broken on a fundemental level. This is the same issue you had believing that silly propaganda meme (tzipora menache) that anyone with a brain knew was false.

It took 30 seconds on google to find the article you don't think exists.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Bush-Abbas- ... ce-partner

I am not being mean here. Your ability to deal with information is not working properly. Unless you can find a way to fix that, no one can discuss anything with you and you will spend your life chasing shadows.

And just a little extra, since I have a few minutes here. I never said you, I said truthers. BUT you do believe in Energy weapons since you bought into the eckert conspiracy. You do believe in blind or brainwashed staff, since you believe over 250 floors were rigged without anyone ever noticing (lol at your urban moving truck). You do believe millions were fooled, since the video evidence doesnt support any of your theories.

A few problems with your analysis.

1) That isn't the article I was referring to. The article I was talking about appeared in Ha'aretz magazine on May 13, 2008; and it was indeed redacted some time after 2010.

2) There is no need to believe in "energy weapons" to believe Eckert's plane was downed. None at all. So once again you're mischaracterizing my position.

That's the problem with you only doing thirty seconds of research. As usual, you do a bare minimum of research - make mistakes yourself - then tell me I'm wrong.

Indeed that is the problem with the entire "debunker" mindset. Because you start from a position that "anyone with a brain" knows that "truthers are wrong", all you DO is thirty seconds of research. And it takes more than thirty seconds to research ANYTHING of value.

There is a very telling quote in your earlier post, however, that indicates to me why you don't want to spend the time.

You think the "jews" are almost mystical in their ability to manipulate the world (the same folks who have trouble countering underfunded Palestinian propaganda)

Once again you're mischaracterizing me; again I urge you to go back through the archives and find so much as one time that I have blamed "the Jews" as opposed to Israel itself - why would I blame "the Jews" when I have Jewish ancestry myself? Hitler would have sent me to the camps, the same as anyone else with a Jewish last name.

But if you genuinely believe that the Palestinians are the problem vis-a-vis propaganda...well, I will say this: there is no doubt that the Palestinians NOW have a propaganda effort going. They take existing pictures of NATO slaughters in Syria and elsewhere; and they put them side-by-side with pictures of actual Israeli slaughters of Palestinians in order to magnify the perception of damage. That has been well established.

They do this in response to something else that is well established: a decades-long "hasbara" strategy by Israel - translated from the Hebrew as "public diplomacy" or "explanation", but in practice...well, that's not what is actually happening. Hasbara is propaganda; propaganda in the classic sense, meant to minimize the effect of Israel's war efforts against Gaza and the West Bank, to minimize the perception that AIPAC is manipulating public affairs in America, and more.

Your thirty seconds of research on the subject ought to turn up a plethora of articles on Israeli hasbara, if you take the time.

Israel To Pay Students For Pro-Israeli Social Media Propaganda: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08 ... 55782.html
Israel's propaganda machine is finally starting to misfire: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 36417.html
Israel Cranks Up The PR Machine: http://www.thenation.com/article/176703 ... pr-machine

Or, if you prefer a more even-handed treatment:
Inside Israel's and Palestine's Propaganda Wars: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... ganda-wars

The idea that Israel is fighting some kind of noble war, only intending itself to defend itself against Palestinian propaganda - that is beyond silly, and you should know it is silly. Both sides by now have rather advanced propaganda efforts going. And if you do see Israel as fundamentally the victim here, you will NEVER want to look at the Israelis who were in and around the Towers before the attacks, or the ones who were caught filming the attacks and cheering; and I am indeed wasting my time trying to get you to.

Hmm...answers and I will try one last crack...

1) No. There is no proof the plane was brought down, so if you do not believe that, it is yet another theory you dont substantiate on any level. You cant have it both ways.

2) Proof it was "redacted"? (and note you are just adding MORE players to your conspiracy too).

Now...you once again missed the point. So lets try grounding your issue (not processing info correctly) to something more mundane. A few years ago, you got it in your head I was hacking the shrine. You had no proof, you had information you were misinterpretting. You went ballistic. You deleted posts, you found other victims where none existed, you became emotional and you did things unethical.

You were wrong, obviously. The point I am making is you are not able to process information, coincidences and events like the rest of us. Something inside you is broken. And the same way you were wrong about me, you are wrong about your bush-ism and the fake tepiche meme.

How can I prove to you it was redacted when it was redacted? I didn't take a screenshot of the article.

It was posted on Ha'aretz on May 13th, 2008. The Jerusalem Post article and the article I mentioned were both covering the same thing - an interview Bush gave to Israeli reporters on May 12th that contained the quote. It got redacted...oh, I don't remember exactly, but some time in and around "Protective Edge"; possibly because Ha'aretz commenters on their Facebook page were continuing to reference it and ask questions about it.

Ha'aretz references their other article by quoting it here, but there is no more proof that it ever existed than this; that is what redacted MEANS.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/decade-in-r ... ush-1.1220

Thus you were wrong about that; but I won't get any admission from you that you were wrong, or that you accused me of being wrong without reason.

As for the incident - I recall it quite well. That was the incident that resulted in your moderatorship here.

But I was "ballistic" long before I accused you of hacking- mistakenly, which I admitted- because you were lying about me and misrepresenting my position, as usual. I only believed you were hacking for a brief period; I corrected myself within the space of a few hours, as I recall; it was a mistake I had made while moderating, which I admitted later. Indeed I recall that BECAUSE you were lying about me - claiming I was "fag-bashing" when I was not - yes, I was extremely angry at you; and indeed more suspicious - too angry to think clearly, and I will quite admit it.

I'm still mad at you over that.

You were utterly shitty to me; though I was to you as well in the end. I was furious at everyone over that incident - furious over the refusal to disallow homophobic language - more angry at you when I started using it here in an attempt to see whether or not those who were repeatedly saying "homo" could take what they were giving - at which point you jumped in, denied that my original intent was to REMOVE the gay-bashing here (or, at the very least, get Flip to stop saying "Tony Homo" over and over again).

I am angry at you still for lying about me even within the space of this thread, where you misrepresent my position yet again as "hating the Jews" when I have made my own Jewish ancestry very clear to you, and more clear that my criticism of Israel on these issues has nothing to do with Judaism as a whole. It is an ugly and offensive smear, particularly given my own ancestry; but there is nothing new there either.

I get it from both sides; neo-Nazis hate me because I have a Jewish last name and Jewish ancestry; Israel's defenders hate me because I insist that the actions of the Israeli military are terribly un-Jewish and always have been; but I am hardly the only Jew to say these things. There is a long traditional of American Jewish intellectual criticism of the Israeli occupation.

Was Einstein "anti-Semitic" for calling Lehi a terrorist group? Was Asimov "anti-Semitic" for saying he didn't think we as Jews had the right to annex all of Palestine all over again? Is Chomsky "anti-Semitic" for calling Israel guilty of terrorism in this era? Is Jon Stewart a "self-hating Jew" for pointing out that Palestinians no longer have anywhere to go?

But in the end - I will have to accept that it's just what you do.

It's just what MOST debunkers do.

Your OWN head is not capable of processing the thought of a coverup this large - so like a compass near north, your own understanding spins wildly when you see information that conflicts with the official story, then settles on the idea that "something is wrong with me" because of our own fights here over the years.

And you thus assume instead that I "hate the Jews" because I am inclined to ask why Israelis were on our rooftop filming the slaughter of our people and cheering.

To me, your tendency to regard that incident as innocuous or trust that none of them were involved in any wrongdoing is just as large a failure in "information processing" as you accuse me of.

Quite frankly, Kali - you are too disinterested to ever see the truth; and your own sympathies for Israel will prevent you from seeing it further.

If you believe the Palestinians are putting out propaganda and all Israel is doing is "countering" it, then you will never, ever, ever ask why Oded Ellner was on that rooftop with a camera and four friends, cheering the murder of our people; nor why the Israeli "art students" were all over the Towers before the attacks.

I still am inclined to ask - are you even Jewish at all? Do you know anything about the history of the region?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus