Twoofer Strategy

[Mr. Jones]

So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.

Unless of course, there was something to hide or a reason to look incompetent.

People expect the President to make statements immediately after an event. If Bush had taken the days, possibly weeks, to review all of the information, people would have been saying "where's Bush? Where's our president?" He's have been chastised for that. Truthers give the government WAY to much credit most of the time, but then tend to think they're, all of a sudden, incompetent when it comes to leaving behind crucial "evidence" that a college student can come up with........
Judging by the current "actions" or "inaction" of the current President, it's obvious that the sitting President doesn't know about everything that goes on in the world. Obama either makes knee-jerk decisions or doesn't act at all we he needs to.

THe statement by COndi said the "whitehouse" didn't believe this type of attack was possible. She said nothing about NORAD or any other government agency. ON TOP OF THAT, if you were the guy writing up the drills, would YOU be the first one to step forward after this attack and take a bullet? Would YOU be the one to blast over to the white house the same day and say "Well listen guys, we did drill for this?"

I've already countered your claim of them not being aware in a prior post that you either didn't read again, or totally ignored.
Facts like the transition phase between incoming and outgoing administrations, that is for bringing them up to speed and facts like Richard Clarke and others sounding the alarm bells, not to mention all the prior attacks that even you mentioned...These people had to have known..either LIHOP, OR MIHOP, but the incompetence excuse just don't fly.
These people are the leaders of the world essentially, and they are THAT stupid and unaware?? Shit, so you're saying most of the public was more aware of the threats then the nations leaders??

 

[Mr. Jones]

No one here has claimed that the official story is 100% correct. That's the problem with you truthers.

There are quite a few of you that say as much and try to gloss over the many glaring inconsistencies and strange anomalies that have not been questioned or adequately explained. One example is some of you OCTAS always saying the 9-11 commission is right on all the major points! How can this be so when a lot of the facts were not even presented nor allowed to be discussed? And they now reject the report because it is not totally accurate!

There's no inbetween with you guys. IT's either one thing or the other, black and white. I haven't claimed that the official story is the entire truth. What I have claimed, is that truthers have no come up with any concrete evidence that the government either did it or let it happen.

By them lying and having to come up with outrageous theories that they haven't even proven close to being plausible, is the reasons that many think there was some complicity by certain people in government positions.

What truthers have is a few things, that in their opinion, "raise eyebrows" to a few people. The truthers on these boards will post something as ABSOULTE EVIDENCE even though it will contradict them in the same article.

What we have is ABSOLUTE evidence of them lying, absolute evidence that counters their version and provides and alternate explanation, and this provides absolute proof that a new non politically based investigation is needed. What the outcome based on all the new evidence of this and the cover up will produce we can not say for certain, but there is enough to make people think LIHOP, or MIHOP, or extreme dereliction of duty or negligence at the very least.

They will post a video that is supposed to be "proof," but then when you look the video up, the truthers cut out a CRUCIAL part of the video that explains what it is and completely contradicts what the truther is trying to say. Mr. JOnes has proven this time and time again as he's posted articles and/or documents to "prove" his point while I've taken the same thing he's posted and pointed out passages in each document that refute what he's saying.... It's an endless cycle of bias. Truthers can't keep posting articles from truther sites an claim that these sites are somehow valid.

You are probably referring to the NWDS document again, where my rebuttals show, that you were wrong. One instance of them trying to prevent the deaths of black ops agents by using a drone, does not mean that not a single American would have died in such a plot, as I have shown you, many Americans and innocents would have perished

Also..the many videos of the WTC buildings coming down, with the witnesses to explosions, and prior knowledge, and the scientific and engineering studies that found thermite, and that show the very highly improbability of the official version being true say a lot and back up the truth movements suspicions.
Again like I said before, 1 piece of the puzzle does not a conspiracy make or prove, it is the sum of the many many pieces that make up the whole story that points to certain people and countries looking very suspicious and or responsible.
You admit that the version of 9-11 is not entirely correct, yet you fight against those that want a new investigation because of it.

 

[candycorn]

No one here has claimed that the official story is 100% correct. That's the problem with you truthers.

There are quite a few of you that say as much and try to gloss over the many glaring inconsistencies and strange anomalies that have not been questioned or adequately explained. One example is some of you OCTAS always saying the 9-11 commission is right on all the major points! How can this be so when a lot of the facts were not even presented nor allowed to be discussed? And they now reject the report because it is not totally accurate!

Please quote an inaccuracy in the report that is germane to the major points/events of that day. You can't. You won't. I win. You lose.

Next!

 

[psikeyhackr]

Please quote an inaccuracy in the report that is germane to the major points/events of that day. You can't. You won't. I win. You lose.

Next!

If a report takes 3 years to produce and has 10,000 pages and cost $20,000,000 and uses the word concrete over 3,000 times but never specifies the total amount to concrete in the towers even though it mentions the total amount of steel in 3 places that is not an inaccuracy.

That is just a trivial omission.

That fact that the steel had to hold up the concrete is of no consequence.

psik

 

[Rozman]

So, OP, I take it you dont believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You thought the JFK assassination was legit?

In other words you believe everything our government tells you as truth? Without even questioning it? Without even WANTING an unbiased impartial investigation?

If so, then you need to seriously get a new hobby besides messing around in politics...

You know nothing; actually less than nothing about what I think because you make incorrect assumptions.

But when the twoofers spend 9 years and are unable to establish a sense of credibility even in place of legitimate credibility; we have to ask ourselves if it isn't time for new strategies.

I believe the 9/11 Commission Report on the major points. It makes perfect sense, you can't quote a single inaccuracy in the report, and you cannot supplant the report with a version of the events that makes as much sense or any sense for that matter. If I'm wrong, please point out what doesn't make sense, quote an inaccuracy in the report, or furnish a companion piece that passes the smell test.

You can't.

You won't.

The challenge is made; be a man and take me up on it or shut the fuck up.

since when did the 911 commission determine the cause of the collapse ?

The cause of the collapse of the twin towers was the design it self.The strength was in the
outside of the buildings the skin if you will.When a tremendous tear was made and the jet fuel feeding the flames and then the floors had no support and pancaked down one floor on top of the next.

To throw that explanation aside and hold to the concept of some massive coverup and demolition is....well insane plain and simple.

To have a conspiracy of this magnitude and not have even one person come forward all these years later looking to come clean pretty much proves it was what it was.It wasn't some freedom fighters performing an act of bravery like Bill Maher suggests.It was a diabolic evil plan using terrorists tactics in a free and open society.

 

[candycorn]

Please quote an inaccuracy in the report that is germane to the major points/events of that day. You can't. You won't. I win. You lose.

Next!

If a report takes 3 years to produce and has 10,000 pages and cost $20,000,000 and uses the word concrete over 3,000 times but never specifies the total amount to concrete in the towers even though it mentions the total amount of steel in 3 places that is not an inaccuracy.

That is just a trivial omission.

That fact that the steel had to hold up the concrete is of no consequence.

psik

The commission report has something like 500 pages....but whatever. You're an ass.

 

[BrianH]

So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.

Unless of course, there was something to hide or a reason to look incompetent.

People expect the President to make statements immediately after an event. If Bush had taken the days, possibly weeks, to review all of the information, people would have been saying "where's Bush? Where's our president?" He's have been chastised for that. Truthers give the government WAY to much credit most of the time, but then tend to think they're, all of a sudden, incompetent when it comes to leaving behind crucial "evidence" that a college student can come up with........
Judging by the current "actions" or "inaction" of the current President, it's obvious that the sitting President doesn't know about everything that goes on in the world. Obama either makes knee-jerk decisions or doesn't act at all we he needs to.

THe statement by COndi said the "whitehouse" didn't believe this type of attack was possible. She said nothing about NORAD or any other government agency. ON TOP OF THAT, if you were the guy writing up the drills, would YOU be the first one to step forward after this attack and take a bullet? Would YOU be the one to blast over to the white house the same day and say "Well listen guys, we did drill for this?"

I've already countered your claim of them not being aware in a prior post that you either didn't read again, or totally ignored.
Facts like the transition phase between incoming and outgoing administrations, that is for bringing them up to speed and facts like Richard Clarke and others sounding the alarm bells, not to mention all the prior attacks that even you mentioned...These people had to have known..either LIHOP, OR MIHOP, but the incompetence excuse just don't fly.
These people are the leaders of the world essentially, and they are THAT stupid and unaware?? Shit, so you're saying most of the public was more aware of the threats then the nations leaders??

Are you saying that the Bush administration was notified of the NORAD drills before 9/11? Where is your proof of this? Where is your proof that Bush and Condi were specifically told of the NORAD drills during this "transition" phase where everyone is brought up to speed? THE NORAD COMMANDER HIMSELF SAID THAT THE EVENTS OF 9/11 WERE NOT ANTICIPATD OR EXERCISED BY NORAD....IT SAYS THIS IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

This is once again your inate ability to make more of something than what it is. The NORAD drills are explained in the article itself and nowhere does it talk of commerical airliners hitting the WTC...IN FACT, it says that they discredited the thought of one hitting the Pentagon because it was thought thought to be impossible.

 

[BrianH]

No one here has claimed that the official story is 100% correct. That's the problem with you truthers.

There are quite a few of you that say as much and try to gloss over the many glaring inconsistencies and strange anomalies that have not been questioned or adequately explained. One example is some of you OCTAS always saying the 9-11 commission is right on all the major points! How can this be so when a lot of the facts were not even presented nor allowed to be discussed? And they now reject the report because it is not totally accurate!

There's no inbetween with you guys. IT's either one thing or the other, black and white. I haven't claimed that the official story is the entire truth. What I have claimed, is that truthers have no come up with any concrete evidence that the government either did it or let it happen.

By them lying and having to come up with outrageous theories that they haven't even proven close to being plausible, is the reasons that many think there was some complicity by certain people in government positions.

What truthers have is a few things, that in their opinion, "raise eyebrows" to a few people. The truthers on these boards will post something as ABSOULTE EVIDENCE even though it will contradict them in the same article.

What we have is ABSOLUTE evidence of them lying, absolute evidence that counters their version and provides and alternate explanation, and this provides absolute proof that a new non politically based investigation is needed. What the outcome based on all the new evidence of this and the cover up will produce we can not say for certain, but there is enough to make people think LIHOP, or MIHOP, or extreme dereliction of duty or negligence at the very least.

They will post a video that is supposed to be "proof," but then when you look the video up, the truthers cut out a CRUCIAL part of the video that explains what it is and completely contradicts what the truther is trying to say. Mr. JOnes has proven this time and time again as he's posted articles and/or documents to "prove" his point while I've taken the same thing he's posted and pointed out passages in each document that refute what he's saying.... It's an endless cycle of bias. Truthers can't keep posting articles from truther sites an claim that these sites are somehow valid.

You are probably referring to the NWDS document again, where my rebuttals show, that you were wrong. One instance of them trying to prevent the deaths of black ops agents by using a drone, does not mean that not a single American would have died in such a plot, as I have shown you, many Americans and innocents would have perished

Also..the many videos of the WTC buildings coming down, with the witnesses to explosions, and prior knowledge, and the scientific and engineering studies that found thermite, and that show the very highly improbability of the official version being true say a lot and back up the truth movements suspicions.
Again like I said before, 1 piece of the puzzle does not a conspiracy make or prove, it is the sum of the many many pieces that make up the whole story that points to certain people and countries looking very suspicious and or responsible.
You admit that the version of 9-11 is not entirely correct, yet you fight against those that want a new investigation because of it.

You'r are truly delusional if you think you "won" the NWD debate. I'm done debating you. You are the most close minded invididual on the planet. You're so close minded that you can't do your own research, but instead copy and paste other people's research without reading it yourself. I've taken two documents that you've used in the last few pages and found stuff IN THE DOCUMENTS that refute what you're trying to use the documents for. This is a true sign of an idiot.

 

[BrianH]

Wiki leaks has just released classified documents that Al Qeada planned further attacks immediately following the Sept 11 attacks. This document, posted by one of the biggest critics of the U.S. government, proves that was Al Qeada responsible. If this was such a big conspiracy, why allow this document to exist?

 

[Mr. Jones]

You'r are truly delusional if you think you "won" the NWD debate. I'm done debating you. You are the most close minded invididual on the planet. You're so close minded that you can't do your own research, but instead copy and paste other people's research without reading it yourself. I've taken two documents that you've used in the last few pages and found stuff IN THE DOCUMENTS that refute what you're trying to use the documents for. This is a true sign of an idiot.

The NWDs doc indeed proves that there were people who would put Americans in harms way, with the very real and high possibility of getting them killed, and they show they were willing to kill innocent people in the process also. What you purposely do is put one part of the doc. under a microscope, while ignoring the overall bigger picture of what a false flag is designed to achieve. Anyone with an open mind will see this, but you avoid it so you can claim some kind of weak victory
It is you that is delusional, and your arguments are weak and pathetic. I would post more evidence about the Norad drills, but you are dead set on the opinion the leaders you elect are idiots and have no clue about the threats to the nation they are sworn to protect. It really is ironic that truthers give the Bush administration more credit, when it comes to this, then you people!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Wiki leaks has just released classified documents that Al Qeada planned further attacks immediately following the Sept 11 attacks. This document, posted by one of the biggest critics of the U.S. government, proves that was Al Qeada responsible. If this was such a big conspiracy, why allow this document to exist?

You simply have no idea do you? Carry on with your head up your ass you dope.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right?
Total cognitive disonance.

 

[BrianH]

Wiki leaks has just released classified documents that Al Qeada planned further attacks immediately following the Sept 11 attacks. This document, posted by one of the biggest critics of the U.S. government, proves that was Al Qeada responsible. If this was such a big conspiracy, why allow this document to exist?

You simply have no idea do you? Carry on with your head up your ass you dope.

Oh good! You got it! I just did the same thing you dumb-asses do when you post a document and then claim it is absolute proof of something when it is most obviously not. You've done it throughout this thread, I was just seeing if you recognized you're own stupid strategy...It's amazing what you twoofers will cherry-pick....lol

 

[BrianH]

you'r are truly delusional if you think you "won" the nwd debate. I'm done debating you. You are the most close minded invididual on the planet. You're so close minded that you can't do your own research, but instead copy and paste other people's research without reading it yourself. I've taken two documents that you've used in the last few pages and found stuff in the documents that refute what you're trying to use the documents for. This is a true sign of an idiot.

the nwds doc indeed proves that there were people who would put americans in harms way, with the very real and high possibility of getting them killed, and they show they were willing to kill innocent people in the process also. What you purposely do is put one part of the doc. Under a microscope, while ignoring the overall bigger picture of what a false flag is designed to achieve. Anyone with an open mind will see this, but you avoid it so you can claim some kind of weak victory
It is you that is delusional, and your arguments are weak and pathetic. I would post more evidence about the norad drills, but you are dead set on the opinion the leaders you elect are idiots and have no clue about the threats to the nation they are sworn to protect. It really is ironic that truthers give the bush administration more credit, when it comes to this, then you people!

you used the nwd to justify your opinion that the u.s. Was willing to murder 3,000 civlians on 9/11. This document cannnot even be loosely connected to 9/11. If you are suggesting that 9/11 was a false-flag attack, either mihop or lihop, then the nwd does not illustrate anything, because even if it did prove the u.s. Was willing to take casualties, they would be military casualites after a false-flag attack, and not during. And that's excluding, of course, that all of the scenarios in the nwd were described in detail that measures would be taken to not harm our personell in the initiation and carrying out of the false-flag attacks. The attempt of your delusional mind to make anything more of it is simply that...delusional.

 

[Mr. Jones]

you used the nwd to justify your opinion that the u.s. Was willing to murder 3,000 civlians on 9/11.

Read the exchange that started this debate.. Way back a few pages the exchange started with this statement by me..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3530456-post151.html
I posted the document to prove to you that the government is capable and will indeed lie, and the NWDs document is proof of that.

This document cannnot even be loosely connected to 9/11. If you are suggesting that 9/11 was a false-flag attack, either mihop or lihop, then the nwd does not illustrate anything, because even if it did prove the u.s. Was willing to take casualties, they would be military casualites after a false-flag attack, and not during.

So military deaths that are directly related to the NWDs false flag conspiracy, based on lies, are not considered by you to be innocent victims of the lies and plan?
You are really a worthless human being to think that, not to mention you leave out all the examples in the plan that reasonably thinking people would conclude would have caused the deaths of innocent people, not in the military.
You asked "WHAT INNOCENT PEOPLE"? And I laid out the scenarios that would kill INNOCENT PEOPLE! from the document itself!
So in conclusion, anyone that is in the military that gets killed in a plan that deceives, and is INTENDED to draw a response, and lead to a war is just cannon fodder, and they are not considered innocent victims of this devious plot?
You truly are a piece of shit man.

And that's excluding, of course, that all of the scenarios in the nwd were described in detail that measures would be taken to not harm our personell in the initiation and carrying out of the false-flag attacks. The attempt of your delusional mind to make anything more of it is simply that...delusional.

The plan indeed mentions the use of a drone with fake victims, but also has very precarious situations like the "attack" on the base and the sinking of ships that in no way could absolutely guarantee that there would be no deaths! I listed them all from the document , but you ignored the post it seems.
The bottom line is I posted the NWDs document to prove my point that the US and certain people in it would go to the extent of a false flag operation, in which innocent and unaware lives would be lost.
The comparison to 9-11 is that many of the counter theorists say the use of remote guidance systems could have been used on the 9-11 planes, and that the 9-11 version of events as told by the people in charge are not entirely true, and they are being accused of lying in a cover up. Your position in the argument was that you doubted that the US would be capable in such a conspiracy, and that it would not ever put their own people in harms way.
The NWDs document confirms what I set out to prove, and just because they have in their plan to minimize their own casualties in the course of the attack by protecting the agents involved ( it was not a willing suicide mission) does not in any way absolve the planners.
Your refusal to acknowledge what a false flag plan is designed to do, is paramount in the argument, and goes to show readers of this thread just how willfully ignorant you are willing to be to look as though you are right .
Would they use wording that suggest minimal casualties to better sell the plan? Apparently so, the use of 1 drone is in the plans, but there are many other scenarios that offer no such assurances, and they have been pointed out to you.

The bottom line is-
My point that the US and certain people in positions of high authority are willing, and capable of misleading the nation and its people, and the planning of such a conspiracy directly leading to the deaths of innocent and unsuspecting people stands.
Is the US capable of lying, and committing a false flag attack that will kill innocent people? Yes! And the NWDs document proves it!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Wiki leaks has just released classified documents that Al Qeada planned further attacks immediately following the Sept 11 attacks. This document, posted by one of the biggest critics of the U.S. government, proves that was Al Qeada responsible. If this was such a big conspiracy, why allow this document to exist?

You simply have no idea do you? Carry on with your head up your ass you dope.

Oh good! You got it! I just did the same thing you dumb-asses do when you post a document and then claim it is absolute proof of something when it is most obviously not. You've done it throughout this thread, I was just seeing if you recognized you're own stupid strategy...It's amazing what you twoofers will cherry-pick....lol

The NWDs document is an official document that outlines a plan to deceive the nation at large into a military response and war that would kill many innocent Americans and innocent Cubans, that was why I posted it, because it IS proof that backs up my original statement here-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3530456-post151.html
And you still have found no counter to this claim

 

[Mr. Jones]

People expect the President to make statements immediately after an event. If Bush had taken the days, possibly weeks, to review all of the information, people would have been saying "where's Bush? Where's our president?" He's have been chastised for that. Truthers give the government WAY to much credit most of the time, but then tend to think they're, all of a sudden, incompetent when it comes to leaving behind crucial "evidence" that a college student can come up with........
Judging by the current "actions" or "inaction" of the current President, it's obvious that the sitting President doesn't know about everything that goes on in the world. Obama either makes knee-jerk decisions or doesn't act at all we he needs to.

THe statement by COndi said the "whitehouse" didn't believe this type of attack was possible. She said nothing about NORAD or any other government agency. ON TOP OF THAT, if you were the guy writing up the drills, would YOU be the first one to step forward after this attack and take a bullet? Would YOU be the one to blast over to the white house the same day and say "Well listen guys, we did drill for this?"

I've already countered your claim of them not being aware in a prior post that you either didn't read again, or totally ignored.
Facts like the transition phase between incoming and outgoing administrations, that is for bringing them up to speed and facts like Richard Clarke and others sounding the alarm bells, not to mention all the prior attacks that even you mentioned...These people had to have known..either LIHOP, OR MIHOP, but the incompetence excuse just don't fly.
These people are the leaders of the world essentially, and they are THAT stupid and unaware?? Shit, so you're saying most of the public was more aware of the threats then the nations leaders??

Are you saying that the Bush administration was notified of the NORAD drills before 9/11? Where is your proof of this? Where is your proof that Bush and Condi were specifically told of the NORAD drills during this "transition" phase where everyone is brought up to speed? THE NORAD COMMANDER HIMSELF SAID THAT THE EVENTS OF 9/11 WERE NOT ANTICIPATD OR EXERCISED BY NORAD....IT SAYS THIS IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

This is once again your inate ability to make more of something than what it is. The NORAD drills are explained in the article itself and nowhere does it talk of commerical airliners hitting the WTC...IN FACT, it says that they discredited the thought of one hitting the Pentagon because it was thought thought to be impossible.

Now you are again resorting to having to nit pic about Norad drills specifically! We are talking about whether the Bush administration saying they had no idea of impending attacks have any merit!

Here’s what we know. During the summer immediately prior to 9/11, Italian, Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian, Tunisian, Moroccan, Russian, Malaysian, Filipino and British intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration that al Qaida was planning a large terrorist hit in the U.S. Many of these agencies accurately speculated upon both the targets and the means by which they would be attacked. The Filipino report, according to The New York Times, detailed the cross-country odyssey of one would-be terrorist as he attended flight schools in New York, Texas, California and North Carolina in order to learn the skills needed to precisely fly a jumbo jet directly into a target.

In the months leading up to 9/11, other FBI offices around the country followed suit, warning about the potential use of airplanes as terrorist weapons, with the most recent warning coming out of the Phoenix office in July of 2002, less than two months before 9/11. Officials in Minneapolis were more specific, and had already identified Zacarias Moussaoui as one of the would-be hijackers.

The Bush folks countered that such an attack was unforeseeable. Unthinkable. But in 1995, Ramsi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, revealed plans to fly a hijacked jetliner into the CIA’s headquarters in Virginia. Filipino police, according to The Associated Press, recently warned that another such plan was in the works. None of this was new. In 1994, Algerian hijackers attempted to use an Air France jetliner to destroy the Eiffel Tower, only to be thwarted during a stop on the ground in Marseille. The unthinkable was clearly thinkable, planned, and already attempted.

A 1999 study commissioned by the U.S, government also foresaw the unforeseeable, reporting that al Qaida wanted to crash aircraft into several targets in Washington, D.C. Richard Clarke, Bush’s top Counter-Terrorism official, said that U.S. intelligence agencies were convinced, ten weeks prior to 9/11, that a major al Qaida attack was imminent. Documents indicate that the administration expected the attack to be aimed at symbolic structures such as the White House and the World Trade Center.

The Washington Post reports that on July 5th, 2001, the White House briefed officials from a dozen federal agencies that, “Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.” Richard Clarke ordered all counter-terrorism officials to cancel vacations and get ready for immediate action. The unfortunate reality is that the “immediate action” wouldn’t take place until after the terrorists struck.

So this, in a nutshell, is what the Bush administration knew.

Did Bush Know

“We know now that the Bush administration received numerous warnings of impending terrorist attacks, some arriving almost on the eve of the Sept. 11 disaster, and did next to nothing. Well, it did slip word to John Ashcroft, our faith-based attorney general, and Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial aircraft. Faith has its limitations.”--Editorial, Arkansas Times, May 24, 2002:

Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11

No one wants to believe that the attacks of Sept. 11 could have been prevented, but we do a disservice to our country if we stay in denial. No one wants to believe that President Bush had more forewarning than he acknowledges, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that he did…

“As warnings of a major terrorist operation against the United States poured in last summer, we know that George Tenet kept warning everyone who would listen. It seems to me certain that he would have kept the vacationing president up to date, including the fresh information on Moussaoui.
“And that's probably why Tenet didn't get fired after Sept. 11.”
---Ray McGovern, Miami Herald, June 3, 2002:

Read more: Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11

And yet again their statements made on national TV of "having no idea" are flushed down the Al Qaeda, along with your willfully ignorant and delusional attempt to justify their lies.
You would think that as an American you would be concerned and appalled at witnessing your elected leaders squirm and try to lie their way out of the responsibility to uphold the pledge they took upon assuming their positions in the government. They are caught in bald faced lies and you still try with all your might to deny it!?

 

[BrianH]

you used the nwd to justify your opinion that the u.s. Was willing to murder 3,000 civlians on 9/11.

Read the exchange that started this debate.. Way back a few pages the exchange started with this statement by me..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3530456-post151.html
I posted the document to prove to you that the government is capable and will indeed lie, and the NWDs document is proof of that.

So military deaths that are directly related to the NWDs false flag conspiracy, based on lies, are not considered by you to be innocent victims of the lies and plan?
You are really a worthless human being to think that, not to mention you leave out all the examples in the plan that reasonably thinking people would conclude would have caused the deaths of innocent people, not in the military.
You asked "WHAT INNOCENT PEOPLE"? And I laid out the scenarios that would kill INNOCENT PEOPLE! from the document itself!
So in conclusion, anyone that is in the military that gets killed in a plan that deceives, and is INTENDED to draw a response, and lead to a war is just cannon fodder, and they are not considered innocent victims of this devious plot?
You truly are a piece of shit man.

And that's excluding, of course, that all of the scenarios in the nwd were described in detail that measures would be taken to not harm our personell in the initiation and carrying out of the false-flag attacks. The attempt of your delusional mind to make anything more of it is simply that...delusional.

The plan indeed mentions the use of a drone with fake victims, but also has very precarious situations like the "attack" on the base and the sinking of ships that in no way could absolutely guarantee that there would be no deaths! I listed them all from the document , but you ignored the post it seems.
The bottom line is I posted the NWDs document to prove my point that the US and certain people in it would go to the extent of a false flag operation, in which innocent and unaware lives would be lost.
The comparison to 9-11 is that many of the counter theorists say the use of remote guidance systems could have been used on the 9-11 planes, and that the 9-11 version of events as told by the people in charge are not entirely true, and they are being accused of lying in a cover up. Your position in the argument was that you doubted that the US would be capable in such a conspiracy, and that it would not ever put their own people in harms way.
The NWDs document confirms what I set out to prove, and just because they have in their plan to minimize their own casualties in the course of the attack by protecting the agents involved ( it was not a willing suicide mission) does not in any way absolve the planners.
Your refusal to acknowledge what a false flag plan is designed to do, is paramount in the argument, and goes to show readers of this thread just how willfully ignorant you are willing to be to look as though you are right .
Would they use wording that suggest minimal casualties to better sell the plan? Apparently so, the use of 1 drone is in the plans, but there are many other scenarios that offer no such assurances, and they have been pointed out to you.

The bottom line is-
My point that the US and certain people in positions of high authority are willing, and capable of misleading the nation and its people, and the planning of such a conspiracy directly leading to the deaths of innocent and unsuspecting people stands.
Is the US capable of lying, and committing a false flag attack that will kill innocent people? Yes! And the NWDs document proves it!

I'm not sure why you are called a truther cause you wouldn't know the truth if it was up your ass kicking footballs.

1. Northwoods document was a document of scenarios that NEVER HAPPENED, SO OBVIOUSLY THE GOVERNMENT WASN'T WILLING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOAL>>>DID I MISS THE WAR WITH CUBA???? Just because a couple of idiots 60 years ago drew up shit like this, doesn't mean that the entire government is out to get you. What the NWD DOES prove is that whoever was in charge took a look at this and decided NOT TO DO IT!!!! You also forget to mention that the PRESIDENT refused to commit such acts, and also REMOVED GENERAL LEMNITZER as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in direct relation to the Northwoods Document. Let's not also forget that 60 years ago the CIA was more powerful. IN reaction to the Northwoods DOcument, JFK removed the majority of the power from the CIA to prevent them from having such a large impact on this country through covert operations.... Your grasping at straws Jones.

2. You speak of a guidance system on the airplanes....WHICH is exactly why I brought up the "pods" spotted on the bottom of the plane earlier. If you understood anything about the "theory" that you twoofers believe, you would know that the primary reason the guidance system theory came about was because there was a supposed "pod" spotted in a photograph under the wing of one of the planes that hit the towers. Hell, you even posted a link about a guy, who was connected to the Bush administration, who developed the shit. When you research further into what this guy does, it brings up the pods.... After your nonsense post, I posted a link that outlined an actual statement, by an EXPERT in photography, that said there was no such pod in the photograph.

FACT: You cannot compare a document that what was rejected 60 years ago, by diffferent people, under different circumstances (Cold War), to the events of 9/11. You cannot seek motive from this. The shear fact that nothing in the NWD ever happened completely irradicates your theory that they were WILLING to do it. IF the U.S. government had followed through with it, THEN you might have an arguement. By your logic any writer who ever wrote a horror film is capable and willing to murder people...because they're obviously sadistic enough to come up with it....right?

 

[BrianH]

You simply have no idea do you? Carry on with your head up your ass you dope.

Oh good! You got it! I just did the same thing you dumb-asses do when you post a document and then claim it is absolute proof of something when it is most obviously not. You've done it throughout this thread, I was just seeing if you recognized you're own stupid strategy...It's amazing what you twoofers will cherry-pick....lol

The NWDs document is an official document that outlines a plan to deceive the nation at large into a military response and war that would kill many innocent Americans and innocent Cubans, that was why I posted it, because it IS proof that backs up my original statement here-

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3530456-post151.html
And you still have found no counter to this claim

Is a passage from an article called Conspiracies and the Defactualization of Analysis by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed



"Whether or not Northwoods is taken as an example of this institutional dynamic, previous instances of contriving attacks on U.S. symbols of power as a pretext for the declaration of wars are systematic enough to demonstrate that this is a method employed by U.S. decision-making structures when elite military, political, strategic and economic considerations converge on making such a method appear favourable, in terms of meeting elite institutional interests. Nevertheless, Shalom and Albert argue that Northwoods is not a relevant example here:

“But… the Joint Chiefs didn’t call for killing U.S. citizens. They did propose sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees (though we don’t know whether the Joint Chiefs would have arranged for a U.S. vessel to fortuitously be on hand to pick up the refugees in the water), but with regard to the shoot down of a plane filled with U.S. college students, the plan was to switch an actual planeload of students with an ‘unmanned’ drone that would be shot down, supposedly by Cuba. Elsewhere, Operation Northwoods proposes blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay in a ‘Remember the Maine’ replay, but explicitly refers to a ‘non-existent crew’. The document also suggests attacks on Cuban refugees in the United States ‘even to the extent of wounding.’ So if this document is supposed to show us what U.S. officials are morally capable of, it seems to suggest that they are capable of lying, deceit, conspiring to wage a war of aggression - but not killing U.S. citizens. Moreover, as far as we can tell, the plan proposed by the Joint Chiefs was rejected by the U.S. civilian leadership.”

It mentions your crazy assertion that they're going to blow up a ship with people on it.... But like I said, this plan was REJECTED....PROVING THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT WILLING TO KILL PEOPLE FOR THIS PURPOSE!!!

 

[BrianH]

I've already countered your claim of them not being aware in a prior post that you either didn't read again, or totally ignored.
Facts like the transition phase between incoming and outgoing administrations, that is for bringing them up to speed and facts like Richard Clarke and others sounding the alarm bells, not to mention all the prior attacks that even you mentioned...These people had to have known..either LIHOP, OR MIHOP, but the incompetence excuse just don't fly.
These people are the leaders of the world essentially, and they are THAT stupid and unaware?? Shit, so you're saying most of the public was more aware of the threats then the nations leaders??

Are you saying that the Bush administration was notified of the NORAD drills before 9/11? Where is your proof of this? Where is your proof that Bush and Condi were specifically told of the NORAD drills during this "transition" phase where everyone is brought up to speed? THE NORAD COMMANDER HIMSELF SAID THAT THE EVENTS OF 9/11 WERE NOT ANTICIPATD OR EXERCISED BY NORAD....IT SAYS THIS IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF.

This is once again your inate ability to make more of something than what it is. The NORAD drills are explained in the article itself and nowhere does it talk of commerical airliners hitting the WTC...IN FACT, it says that they discredited the thought of one hitting the Pentagon because it was thought thought to be impossible.

Now you are again resorting to having to nit pic about Norad drills specifically! We are talking about whether the Bush administration saying they had no idea of impending attacks have any merit!

Here’s what we know. During the summer immediately prior to 9/11, Italian, Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian, Tunisian, Moroccan, Russian, Malaysian, Filipino and British intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration that al Qaida was planning a large terrorist hit in the U.S. Many of these agencies accurately speculated upon both the targets and the means by which they would be attacked. The Filipino report, according to The New York Times, detailed the cross-country odyssey of one would-be terrorist as he attended flight schools in New York, Texas, California and North Carolina in order to learn the skills needed to precisely fly a jumbo jet directly into a target.

In the months leading up to 9/11, other FBI offices around the country followed suit, warning about the potential use of airplanes as terrorist weapons, with the most recent warning coming out of the Phoenix office in July of 2002, less than two months before 9/11. Officials in Minneapolis were more specific, and had already identified Zacarias Moussaoui as one of the would-be hijackers.

The Bush folks countered that such an attack was unforeseeable. Unthinkable. But in 1995, Ramsi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, revealed plans to fly a hijacked jetliner into the CIA’s headquarters in Virginia. Filipino police, according to The Associated Press, recently warned that another such plan was in the works. None of this was new. In 1994, Algerian hijackers attempted to use an Air France jetliner to destroy the Eiffel Tower, only to be thwarted during a stop on the ground in Marseille. The unthinkable was clearly thinkable, planned, and already attempted.

A 1999 study commissioned by the U.S, government also foresaw the unforeseeable, reporting that al Qaida wanted to crash aircraft into several targets in Washington, D.C. Richard Clarke, Bush’s top Counter-Terrorism official, said that U.S. intelligence agencies were convinced, ten weeks prior to 9/11, that a major al Qaida attack was imminent. Documents indicate that the administration expected the attack to be aimed at symbolic structures such as the White House and the World Trade Center.

The Washington Post reports that on July 5th, 2001, the White House briefed officials from a dozen federal agencies that, “Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.” Richard Clarke ordered all counter-terrorism officials to cancel vacations and get ready for immediate action. The unfortunate reality is that the “immediate action” wouldn’t take place until after the terrorists struck.

So this, in a nutshell, is what the Bush administration knew.

Did Bush Know

“We know now that the Bush administration received numerous warnings of impending terrorist attacks, some arriving almost on the eve of the Sept. 11 disaster, and did next to nothing. Well, it did slip word to John Ashcroft, our faith-based attorney general, and Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial aircraft. Faith has its limitations.”--Editorial, Arkansas Times, May 24, 2002:

Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11

No one wants to believe that the attacks of Sept. 11 could have been prevented, but we do a disservice to our country if we stay in denial. No one wants to believe that President Bush had more forewarning than he acknowledges, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that he did…

“As warnings of a major terrorist operation against the United States poured in last summer, we know that George Tenet kept warning everyone who would listen. It seems to me certain that he would have kept the vacationing president up to date, including the fresh information on Moussaoui.
“And that's probably why Tenet didn't get fired after Sept. 11.”
---Ray McGovern, Miami Herald, June 3, 2002:

Read more: Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11

And yet again their statements made on national TV of "having no idea" are flushed down the Al Qaeda, along with your willfully ignorant and delusional attempt to justify their lies.
You would think that as an American you would be concerned and appalled at witnessing your elected leaders squirm and try to lie their way out of the responsibility to uphold the pledge they took upon assuming their positions in the government. They are caught in bald faced lies and you still try with all your might to deny it!?

I sure hope you don't discredit THIS CBS article, considering you've used them as well.

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11 - CBS News

"CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin says the warning was in a document called the President's Daily Brief, which is considered to be the single most important document that the U.S. intelligence community turns out. The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings."


I'll let you read the rest and hope that you're smart enough to figure it out for yourself. This article shows what Bush knew and what actions were taken before hand. And have you noticed that all of these "reports" written about using planes as weapons happened BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE! ?