Hmm... maybe it's the office (position) itself that leads to deluded decision-making.
Recent Reviews
-
I was given the Ipod nano 6th generation for Christmas 2011. I was starting to take up running and needed something to track my run. since I just started I was only using my Ipod roughly 3 times...
-
I have had the iPad Verizon 4G LTE for a month now, and over all I couldn't be happier with the machine. The only issue I have found so far is when on wifi it has a slower speed in processing...
-
I have owned at least a dozen different Mac laptops over the years, starting with a Powerbook 1400 back in the day. The 13-inch Air is my absolute favorite of the bunch. It's the first laptop...
-
I spent quite a bit of time reading the setup manuals and various Apple articles about manually setting up this device since I have an unusual setup, and the setup manuals indicated I would have...
-
all i have to say is i love it its so much faster and i could just slip it into my purse p.s it has a ton of space for the 64gb
Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence - Page 3

Clinton tackled welfare reform and did a number of other good things while in office. It's too bad he derailed his big chance to help the world with a stunning moral failure than rendered his second term essentially meaningless. And in the U.S., you only get two chances at the big job.
I understand that in your deluded world, all who disagree with you have been brainwashed by the vast right wing conspiracy.
But I should point out that here in the real world, I have never listened to a complete Limbaugh radio program, and have never seen and would not be able to recognize the other two if I saw them on the street.
" It's too bad he derailed his big chance to help the world with a stunning moral failure than rendered his second term essentially meaningless."
Uh no.
His second term was a great success and the good things he did still stand. Compared to Bush he was an outstanding success. He balanced the budget, created a surplus. He promoted good will while Bush only promotes hatred of the U.S.
Hell I don't even think that the fact he was unfaithful to his wife is any of our business. He just should have fessed up. But as I've stated before I think Bush would have lied under oath ( and probably has ) also. Unfortunately he's the one I blame for sticking us with Bush. If it wasn't for his fooling around and then lying about it Bush probably wouldn't have gotten elected and Gore would have been president.

Clinton tackled welfare reform and did a number of other good things while in office. It's too bad he derailed his big chance to help the world with a stunning moral failure than rendered his second term essentially meaningless. And in the U.S., you only get two chances at the big job.
I understand that in your deluded world, all who disagree with you have been brainwashed by the vast right wing conspiracy.
But I should point out that here in the real world, I have never listened to a complete Limbaugh radio program, and have never seen and would not be able to recognize the other two if I saw them on the street.
I find it ironic that the Republican congress and the concerted effort to bring Clinton down hamstrung him from, well, doing anything internationally. I mean look what happened when he bombed Bin Laden's training camp. He got mercilously criticised. Look what happened when he actually effectively inacted regime change in Yugoslavia and did it without the useless loss of life of American soldiers...it was "wag the dog".
So how do you expect an embattled president to be effective on the war on terror? Seriously?
You may not listen to the right-wing hate radio mongers, but you certainly sound just like one.
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,540
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User

Yeah you may be right. If Gore had won there wouldn't have been the Iraq war and maybe even 911. Hence the right wouldn't have been able to gather so much power.
Maybe Gore would have paid closer attention to those reports of Al-Qaeda training men to use airplanes as wepons.

That is outrageous. Absolutely outrageous.
- Joined: Nov 2001
- Location: Coatesville, PA
- Posts: 15,540
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User




The fact that there was info out there prior to 911 asks a big question about why Bush didn't take precautions ( instead of constantly being on vacation ). The whole affair was handled poorly. Gore is a more intelligent man than Bush ( and that's an established fact ) so it makes you wonder what he would have done.
http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/000268.html
Also he wouldn't have attacked Iraq. Saddam didn't insult his daddy.

It's not an established fact. Jesus. And what was handled poorly?

Agreed. But the info was out there for years. The Republicans could similarly ask why Clinton and Gore didn't take precautions (instead of having pizza parties and sleepovers in the White House.)
Throwing around blame for the WTC attacks is a useless sport. You are simply derailing a thread on a controversial presidential pardon with empty 9-11 sloganeering.
Excellent points.

Frank the important part since this was just info being collected before : " delivered to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001 " The 1997 date was part of the 2001 report.
Also
" The same month as that briefing of Bush, U.S. intelligence officials received two uncorroborated reports suggesting terrorists might use airplanes, including one that suggested al-Qaeda operatives were considering flying a plane into a U.S. embassy, current and former government officials said. "
Also
"The sources said the briefing memo did not provide the exact date of that intelligence but made clear it was in the 2001 time frame, and that FBI and other agencies were investigating it. The information had been provided to intelligence and law enforcement agencies well before Bush's briefing, the sources said. "
And
" The sources said the presidential memo included a series of bullet items that brought Bush through a history of mostly uncorroborated intelligence that cited al-Qaeda's interest in hijacking planes to win the release of Islamic extremists who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999 as well as the travelings of suspected al-Qaeda operatives, include some U.S. citizens, in and out of the United States. It suggested al-Qaeda might have a support system in place on U.S. soil, the sources said. "
And there is this part
"Rice also testified that she did not recall seeing any warnings before Sept. 11 that a plane might be used a terrorist weapon, though it was possible others in the White House did. "

OK, I'll bite. Prior to 9/11 no one predicted that terrorists would hijack a civilian airliner and fly it into buildings. No one.
Yes, the PDB suggested Al-Queda was going to attack in the US. Yes, hijackings were mentioned...separately in the traditional sense. And yes, there was a reference to using planes in attack buildings. But the point is that "hijacking" was never thought of in this way before. The term never meant "take over a jumbo jet and fly it into a skyscraper."
jimmac, you've said a lot of crazy shit over the years, but this whole argument about Gore preventing 9/11 is just shameless and sad.
- segovius
- The New Number 2
- Joined: May 2003
- Location: The Village
- Posts: 9,831
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
But NO-ONE predicted that the planes used would be white in colour and that they would hit at exactly the time they did on THAT SPECIFIC DAY.......
- segovius
- The New Number 2
- Joined: May 2003
- Location: The Village
- Posts: 9,831
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
And....
And....
And.....
Linky
You're lack of understanding ( or willingness to understand ) of world events is outrageous! Absolutely outrageous!




It's not an established fact. Jesus. And what was handled poorly?
Excellent points.
OK, I'll bite. Prior to 9/11 no one predicted that terrorists would hijack a civilian airliner and fly it into buildings. No one.
Yes, the PDB suggested Al-Queda was going to attack in the US. Yes, hijackings were mentioned...separately in the traditional sense. And yes, there was a reference to using planes in attack buildings. But the point is that "hijacking" was never thought of in this way before. The term never meant "take over a jumbo jet and fly it into a skyscraper."
jimmac, you've said a lot of crazy shit over the years, but this whole argument about Gore preventing 9/11 is just shameless and sad.
This entire post is desperate and partial nonfact.
Bush and Gore's scores are on record. No one has been able to debunk a matter of record.
It's also a matter of record that there were indications that Al-Qaeda was planning to use airplanes as weapons before 911 ( yes flying them into buildings such as a U.S. embassy ). Connect the god damn dots! Jesus!
I don't care if you don't like it.
As for the matter of why Clinton didn't take the action necessary to prevent this. The report wasn't presented to him. It was presented to Bush. The facts contained therein were gathered over the years and the dates like 1997 were not in any gerneral known report submitted to Clinton but were in the ( known ) report to Bush submitted in 2001. Dummy. Also why do you keep harping on Clinton in this regard! He wasn't president during 911!
These whole 2 terms have turned out so bad how could it help but to have been better under Gore. Also do we really have to go over again how badly the whole 911 affair was handled? That would make for one hell of a long post!

Originally Posted by SDW2001
:OK, I'll bite. Prior to 9/11 no one predicted that terrorists would hijack a civilian airliner and fly it into buildings. No one
And....In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use commercial aircraft in unconventional ways,possibly as flying bombs. [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in the final stages of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bushs briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]
And....Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, We had clearly warned them on several occasions, but they did not pay the necessary attention. [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened. [Izvestia, 9/12/02]
And.....Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasnt told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered one of the Wests most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world. [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: Im studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other. The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for the brothers going to the United States, and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that very, very secret plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02]
And....In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack American and Israeli symbols which stand out. Within the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified but there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented. This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]
Linky
Great post, Segovius!. I think there were even more warnings, possibly Imdian intel. Come to think of it, the picture painted is that just about every important Intel agency in the world had heard these rumors.
You have to wonder what they talked about in the Augsut 01 briefing to the President warning of an impending Bin Laden attack. Assuming Bush asked a few questions, you'd think some of the specifics of the foreign intel reports coming in were discussed (ok,maybe not the plane colors). Also, we know the FBI higher-ups killed investigations into suspicious foreign students at flying schools, around the same time. Wasn't Louis Freeh at that meeting? What about John O'neill-one of the FBI's highest ranking counter-terror officials? (who later retired and had told friends just before he died in the WTC bombing that he was expecting a major attack )
At the top we know that Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al denied foreknowledge of the attacks. Maybe all of these people were day dreaming through these briefings--after all it was summer, and, as has been remarked earlier, the vacation season was upon them.
Overall, the picture painted is one of an intel.counter terror community at odds with itself. I wonder if the factions were divided along partisan lines? It might explain the bureaucratic inertia.
PS It's ironic--we mirror the dysfunction of our gov't officals. We' re a citizenry at odds with itself, arguing about all the fiine points when we likely all agree that they're all (the Dems and Repubs) a bunch of liars and thieves. And then we argue which group of liars and thieves is most corrupt! Meanwhile things get worse and worse (for most of us): http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/. There was also an article in the Guradian on the day the London bombing story happened about a gov't cover-up of a new NASA report that the melting of the Antarcticv anf Greenland Ice sheets is happening much faster than expected, with potential catostrphic results (see here: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/200282.php) .
- Joined: Oct 2005
- Location: Southern Paradise
- Posts: 6,333
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
There are memos to this affect, too.
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

The Story of Stuff
The Story of Stuff
Well it is a bit of a sore spot.

- Joined: Oct 2005
- Location: Southern Paradise
- Posts: 6,333
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
Nice picture, but it's not degenerating: they are all linked.
Bush wanted his war.
The memo was sent.
A judge known for being hard on crime was appointed.
9/11 occurred; Bush had his Pearl Harbor.
Bush wanted to attack Iraq.
Somebody spoke against that.
The war started under false pretenses.
Mission accomplished.
A name was leaked to punish the dissenter.
A fall guy took the heat. (Just happened to be the advisor to the VP; go figure)
A sentence was given for obstructing justice at the highest levels of government.
The Great Leader starts working on a program to get tough on crime.
An appeal attempt fails; jail beckons.
The Great Leader commutes part of the sentence for being "too harsh".
US soldiers and Iraqi civilians continue to die for unknown reasons.
Bush couldn't be happier; "I'm a War President".
All of this resulted from GW's severe lack of self-confidence.
How much does the world have to pay for this guy's internal conflict?
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Very. However I'm more sore at GWB for the incredibly ineffective response he chose for 911.
I'd like to see Bin Laden captured and then on broadcast television, on every network, I'd like to see him stripped naked, whipped, beaten and executed.
As for Bush, I just want him the hell out of office!
- segovius
- The New Number 2
- Joined: May 2003
- Location: The Village
- Posts: 9,831
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
Is that before, during or after a trial which would produce evidence of guilt (or innocence) ?
But I guess you mean 'instead of'.....
- Joined: Oct 2005
- Location: Southern Paradise
- Posts: 6,333
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
- segovius
- The New Number 2
- Joined: May 2003
- Location: The Village
- Posts: 9,831
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
Prevention is better than cure - Bush is one step ahread of you (for once); he just will never try to catch him.....
AHHHHH!
There you go. Now you've got it.

This story about Sen. Dianne Feinstein raises an eyebrow or 4.
To quote:
I thought back to something I had tripped upon a while ago, something that involved Libby, which happened on September 10, 2001, the day before the twin towers were struck.
On the CNN site, in a timeline available from this page, I found this stunning entry:
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 A CIA plan to strike at al Qaeda in Afghanistan, including support for the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, is given to the White House. Sen. Dianne Feinstein asks for a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney. The California Democrat is told that Cheney's staff would need six months to prepare for a meeting.
When I read this, I was stunned on two levels.
First, read that again. The CIA was going to do BEFORE 9/11 exactly what it did AFTER 9/11 - strike at al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Since we hadn't been attacked yet, 9/11 provided a nifty justification for this plan.
But second, Feinstein is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a group that works closely with intelligence agencies and--ostensibly--provides oversight of intelligence activities. (I say ostensibly because the committee does not know of, and therefore has no option to approve or disapprove all intelligence activities). How could it be that, as the 9/11 Commission report states, when the "system was blinking red" on a possible terrorist attack on the country, and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee comes to say hey, something serious is afoot and we need to talk, the VP's office could blow off Feinstein by saying they couldn't review her plans for six months?
Curious, I called Senator Feinstein's office and asked, is it normal for the VP to blow off a meeting with Senator Feinstein for six months? The four people I spoke to in her office all said and did the same thing. They said no, that's not usual, what is this about? I said this is about the Senator's 9/10 visit to Cheney, the day before 9/11. At this, each staffer got nervous and transferred me to the next person. None of them would even confirm that this conversation had transpired, but in the end, I found it on a press release on Feinstein's senate site:
Read the whole article here.
Its a subject that's impossible to avoid when talking about the Bush Administration. 9/11 is their raison d'etre, their Pearl Harbor/Reichstag Fire/Gulf of Tonkin Incident etc. etc. Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was a rudderless ship, going nowhere fast. Then, as if by magic, after both Bush and Cheney took unprecendented month-long vacations at their respective ranches, they ramp up all 5 gears in 24 hours, from somnamulence on 9/10, to blazing down the straight on 9/12. 9/11 "justifies" (in their minds) everything they have done in the last 5.75 years. 9/11 punctuates Bush and Cheney speeches like commas. Without it, there would have been no Afghanistan war, no Iraq war, no big new 200,000 employee government department (Homeland "Security" (sic), no "Patriot" Act (sic), no threatened Iran war, the trashing of the Constitution, and all the rest of the last few years' garbage.
It is not even necessary to get into impossible skyscraper collapses, conflicting NTSB flight data recorder material, living "suicide" hijackers, foreknowledge of the attacks by law enforcement/intelligence agencies of numerous nations, security/military drills and exercises at the time of both attacks that simulated the exact nature, times, and places of the attacks, Cheney lying to the country about his whereabouts that morning, the 9/11 Commission lying about the Twin Towers' architecture, Bush watching the first plane go in on a TV monitor (!), and a pork-chop eating, gold-wearing, hard-liquor-drinking, coke-snorting, partying "Muslim fundamentalist" who was so into his religion that he violated all of its most important earthly rules as he planned to die for Allah.... and hundreds of other damning aspects of the attacks.
The shifty, shady and suspicious behavior of the Bush Administration in avoiding any form of investigation, for so long (441 days).. should be enough for even the most ardent supporter of the official conspiracy yarn to get uncomfortable.... and Scooter Libby was in the thick of it.
Oh, I don't doubt that at all; it's just that the 'Worst President' thread has more or less become the repository for general anti-Bush posts. It took what, less than a page of replies for this one to turn to 9/11? Not to say that 9/11 is unworthy of discussion, but does it have to crop up in *every* Bush thread?
The Story of Stuff
The Story of Stuff
Sammi Jo, you were doing exceptionally well until this paragraph. You have to admit that controlled demolitions have been de-bunked, period. As far as the other statements, you should keep evaluating and researching them. Others just need to be tossed aside for now, you tend to stack the deck too high to support another statement. In discarding some of the flotsam, you will hold up a lot better to credibility.

Sammi Jo, you were doing exceptionally well until this paragraph. You have to admit that controlled demolitions have been de-bunked, period. As far as the other statements, you should keep evaluating and researching them. Others just need to be tossed aside for now, you tend to stack the deck too high to support another statement. In discarding some of the flotsam, you will hold up a lot better to credibility.
sammi_lo must have watched Zeitgeist the Movie a few THOUSAND TIMES!
Then it was off to google "9-11" or "9/11" or "911" and "wikipedia" to learn all about how censorship REALLY works at wikipedia.
Now I'm off to pen my new book titled "Zitfest the Abomination" wherein I tie together the GUT of KKKonspiracy. Therein you will discover the nature of the KKKosmos KKKreated ~13.7 billion years ago by KKKod.
[CENTER]

KKKod is KKKood[/CENTER]
The truth will set you free!
Well, believing we are a nation of laws, I'd prefer he be brought to justice the traditional way. But the emotional side of my brain would like the "instead of" option. But I'm rational. Which is why I'm not a Republican. LOL!

sammi_lo must have watched Zeitgeist the Movie a few THOUSAND TIMES!
Ironically, I watched that yesterday. A great beginning/end but the middle made me almost turn it off. But I watched it all and was impressed with a lot of what it offered.
It will if we keep digging and eventually accepting some dis-credibility to certain claims.
Sammi Jo is right on the mark with the Libby/Feinstein/9-10 claims. It's all there and available for review.

Ironically, I watched that yesterday. A great beginning/end but the middle made me almost turn it off. But I watched it all and was impressed with a lot of what it offered.
It will if we keep digging and eventually accepting some dis-credibility to certain claims.
Sammi Jo is right on the mark with the Libby/Feinstein/9-10 claims. It's all there and available for review.
Let's say I accept ALL of the (RE: Libby/Feinstein/9-10) claims, what of it?
It tells me that this executive branch neocon mindset is secretive, wanted to "restore" the relative strength of the executive branch (RE: Clinton), doesn't like paper trails (RE: their emails, voicemails, recordings, et. al), and wants to "Big Brother" all our sorry asses through FUD and Peeping Dicks™.
That the government wants to control us, D'oh, NO SHER SHITLOCK!
So what's new under the sun? Next up active mind control!
So (RE: 9-10 et. al.) the DOD doesn't plan things? As I recall Clinton tried to take out bin Laden on August 20th 1998, right?
That's how I "connect the dots."
As to Zeitgeist the Movie (ZtM), that URL at wikipedia didn't even exist several days ago! I couldn't even get through the first few minutes of the second part, and even then, I knew I'd be doing some fact checking wrt to first part. For example Horus as depicted in ZtM is way off base according to Egyptologists;
Parallels between Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God
And they couldn't get the The Great Month of Aquarius correct;
In 1928, at the Conference of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Leiden, the Netherlands, the edges of the 88 official constellations became defined in astronomical terms. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600.
The Austrian astronomer, Professor Hermann Haupt, examined the question of when the Age of Aquarius begins in an article published in 1992 by the Austrian Academy of Science: with the German title Der Beginn des Wassermannzeitalters, eine astronomische Frage? (The Start of the Aquarian Age, an Astronomical Question?). Based on the boundaries accepted by IAU in 1928, Haupt's article investigates the start of the Age of Aquarius by calculating the entry of the spring equinox point over the parallel cycle (d = - 4°) between the constellations Pisces and Aquarius and reaches, using the usual formula of precession (Gliese, 1982), the year 2595. However Haupt concludes: "Though it cannot be expected that astrologers will follow the official boundaries of the constellations, there will be an attempt to calculate the entry of the spring equinox point into the constellation of Aquarius." and "As briefly has been shown, the results and methods of astrology in many areas, such as concerning the Aquarian age, are controversial on their own and cannot be called scientific because of the many esoteric elements."
Zodiacal 30 degrees
Heindel-Rosicrucian based interpretation: begins in ca. AD 2654 (the Orb of influence started in ca. AD 1934/1930s)
Note: in this case, the Orb of influence (10th degree of Pisces) coincides with the discovery of Pluto, technological advancements including nuclear fission, the invention of the radar, the invention of SSB and FM in radio transmission, the first television broadcasts with a modern level of definition (1936); in the worldwide period of the Great Depression and the World Wars.
Elsa M. Glover interpretation:[11] ca. AD 2638
Neil Mann interpretation: begins AD 2150
Dane Rudhyar was one of the most important astrologers of the 20th century. His many influential books helped reconcile astrology with modern psychology and free it from the deterministic trappings of the past. According to his interpretation, the Age of Aquarius will begin in 2062.
Constellation
Shephard Simpson interpretation: begins in ca. AD 2680
Hermann Haupt interpretation begins in ca. AD 2595
So basically the IAU and most people consider ~2,600 AD to be the start of the the Age of Aquarius NOT ~2,150 AD.
ZtM is an unmitigable incontrovertible POS IMHO.
The real truth will set some of us free.
\
Sammi Jo, you were doing exceptionally well until this paragraph. You have to admit that controlled demolitions have been de-bunked, period. As far as the other statements, you should keep evaluating and researching them. Others just need to be tossed aside for now, you tend to stack the deck too high to support another statement. In discarding some of the flotsam, you will hold up a lot better to credibility.
I know that site very well. It's a great example of cherrypicking data to support preconceived conclusions, just like the Bush Administration did in the run up to the Iraq war, ir the 9/11 did in their botched (whitewash) "investigation". Even if one did a wild thought experiment, where everything on "debunking911.com is accurate, and complete, we are still left with hundreds of gaping holes, unanswered questions and outright lies. Lets ask: Why the lies????? Can debunking911.com answer *that*?
People are going to debunk the official story, then debunkers will debunk the debunkers, and the debunkers of the debunkers will get debunked, and so on in an infinite loop. Lots of speculation .. and much of it because the data is missing.
Nobody (in all probability) has the 9/11 story entirely correct (perhaps by a long shot). It's a shame that the official version's survival as a working theory is more based upon faith, endless repetition, and namecalling. The Bush Corp version has not been held to any worthwhile standard of rigor, and their best evidence (cellphone calls, security-cam tapes, videotapes of bin Laden, etc.) would never stand up as evidence in a court of law as none of these supposed items of "evidence" have verifiable chains of custody. I guess that in this age of "faithbased initiatives", a faith-based conclusion was what some folks were satisfied with.

I know that site very well. It's a great example of cherrypicking data to support preconceived conclusions, just like the Bush Administration did in the run up to the Iraq war, ir the 9/11 did in their botched (whitewash) "investigation". Even if one did a wild thought experiment, where everything on "debunking911.com is accurate, and complete, we are still left with hundreds of gaping holes, unanswered questions and outright lies. Lets ask: Why the lies????? Can debunking911.com answer *that*?
People are going to debunk the official story, then debunkers will debunk the debunkers, and the debunkers of the debunkers will get debunked, and so on in an infinite loop. Lots of speculation .. and much of it because the data is missing.
Nobody (in all probability) has the 9/11 story entirely correct (perhaps by a long shot). It's a shame that the official version's survival as a working theory is more based upon faith, endless repetition, and namecalling. The Bush Corp version has not been held to any worthwhile standard of rigor, and their best evidence (cellphone calls, security-cam tapes, videotapes of bin Laden, etc.) would never stand up as evidence in a court of law as none of these supposed items of "evidence" have verifiable chains of custody. I guess that in this age of "faithbased initiatives", a faith-based conclusion was what some folks were satisfied with.
What factual lies wrt the specifics of terrorists actions (prior to and) on 9-11? And who EXACTLY started the "cherrypicking" and "preconceived conclusions" anyway?
Did the Bush administration hand pick the 9-11 Commission, the NIST scientists/engineers who conducted their investigations, or those professionals (e. g. structural engineers, forensics experts, aircraft experts, etceteras) in the private sector who supported their conclusions?
And since I haven't been to NYC since 9-11, how do I even know that the WTC isn't still there? How do I know that the Eiffel Tower even exists since I've never seen/touched it myself? Or the Pyramids in Egypt? Perhaps the Sun doesn't exist, since I've never touched it!
Do you know what the acronyms ASCE, ASME, ACI, and AISC stand for?
- Joined: Nov 2003
- Location: at the range...
- Posts: 4,475
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
Sure...
the ASCE: Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy
the ASME: Association for the Study of Medical Education
the ACI: Andean Counterdrug Initiative
the AISC: The Art Institute of Southern California
OK, so a bunch of Cuban economists, studying medicine and drugs in South America are secretly training to do terroristic art thefts?

I'm an ASNT certified weld inspector, does that count?


Sure...
the ASCE: Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy
the ASME: Association for the Study of Medical Education
the ACI: Andean Counterdrug Initiative
the AISC: The Art Institute of Southern California
OK, so a bunch of Cuban economists, studying medicine and drugs in South America are secretly training to do terroristic art thefts?


The Story of Stuff
The Story of Stuff
Those "gaping holes" are what the towers and WTC 7 had that brought them down. What is unfortunate is that the cult of "truthers" have bred (cloned more like it) countless copy-cat CT sites that overshadow the reason to keep investigating. Out of thousands of these there are only three that I know of (I'd include Popular Mechanics, but we already know the assumptions of them being "yellow journalism") that try to keep scanning the assumptions, allegations and yes, lies that the "truthers" have propagated.
World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”
More papers there too.
Read it. Review it. Hell, write the author and try to argue your points! That's what it's there for ("peer reviewed"). Maybe the experience will enlighten you both. I found talking to Philadelphia, NYC firemen, police and demolition experts over the years. It has been the most important and moving experiences I've had concerning 9-11.
That's called dissemination of information. Hell, even the Loose Change dudes have revised their claims what...3-4 times already? Look also at the JFK assassination...two new books out on that. Watergate..."Deep Throat"...

Nobody (in all probability) has the 9/11 story entirely correct (perhaps by a long shot). It's a shame that the official version's survival as a working theory is more based upon faith, endless repetition, and namecalling. The Bush Corp version has not been held to any worthwhile standard of rigor, and their best evidence (cellphone calls, security-cam tapes, videotapes of bin Laden, etc.) would never stand up as evidence in a court of law as none of these supposed items of "evidence" have verifiable chains of custody. I guess that in this age of "faithbased initiatives", a faith-based conclusion was what some folks were satisfied with.
Seen "Who Killed John O'Neill?". Covers the money chain quite well.
As far as the Bush/Cheney/Neocon conspiracy...that argument will be going on (and has since Nixon) for centuries too.
So, out of curiosity (since both you and I have written a lot on this subject here), a question for you:
Do you fully believe the Bush Admin's official position in its entirety, namely, that "19 fundamentalist Muslim men boarded 4 commercial planes, and flew 3 of those 4 planes into high profile targets (while the 4th crashed due to passengers' actions), and the entire operation came as a complete surprise, namely that nobody in the Federal Government, or security/intelligence/law enforcement community had any idea or expectation beforehand that it was going to happen, and the sole motivation for it was "because they hated our freedoms?"
Just out of interest.

So, out of curiosity (since both you and I have written a lot on this subject here), a question for you:
Do you fully believe the Bush Admin's official position in its entirety, namely, that "19 fundamentalist Muslim men boarded 4 commercial planes, and flew 3 of those 4 planes into high profile targets (while the 4th crashed due to passengers' actions), and the entire operation came as a complete surprise, namely that nobody in the Federal Government, or security/intelligence/law enforcement community had any idea or expectation beforehand that it was going to happen, and the sole motivation for it was "because they hated our freedoms?"
Just out of interest.
Of course not. I don't believe that we blew up the WTC Towers, WTC 7 or had a remote controlled missile penetrate and blow up the Pentagon. I do believe that this administration (& the neocons before them) had this all set up for their agenda to take over oil production in strategic areas in the Middle East *, instill fear into the general populous and set in motion all the other scandals that power hungry humans have done since the beginning of time.
* Since 1975 mind you...
I'm old. I sense weirdness, coincidence and conspiracy both ways with a little more clarity. So get off my grassy knoll...

Of course not. I don't believe that we blew up the WTC Towers, WTC 7 or had a remote controlled missile penetrate and blow up the Pentagon. I do believe that this administration (& the neocons before them) had this all set up for their agenda to take over oil production in strategic areas in the Middle East *, instill fear into the general populous and set in motion all the other scandals that power hungry humans have done since the beginning of time.
* Since 1975 mind you...
I'm old. I sense weirdness, coincidence and conspiracy both ways with a little more clarity. So get off my grassy knoll...
I feel the same way. No there's no smoking gun I can produce but it all seems a little too convenient. Too many questions. From the lame response to this event to the way it just worked out for Bush over the years. Until now of course.
Just how does one attack the center of the western military world so easily? You'd think they would have been targeting them miles away. We've always heard that minutes are an eternity for modern warfare. And don't tell me if they had a clear shot they wouldn't have taken the plane out. How many lives were on the plane versus how many died at the Pentigon?
We'll probably never know the whole truth.
- Joined: Nov 2003
- Location: at the range...
- Posts: 4,475
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
The most correct misspelling I have seen in many moons. I need to cook up a definition for that one. Something that involves the carnival-Saturday-afternoon-won't-this-be-fun spirit of getting into sectarian conflicts... anyone?
Yes, yes, yes, warfare. The Warfair let's all go!
I've let several of yours go. Not anymore.
You had better be A number one perfect from now on.
But at least my posts have some subject matter pertaining to the discussion at hand. Not trying to appear clever by dwelling on the other's spelling or typos.
- Joined: Oct 2005
- Location: Southern Paradise
- Posts: 6,333
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User
If anyone is really bent upon correcting grammar and spelling, spend some time sending feedback to either CNN or most any source on Yahoo News (especially AP); they are professional writers that have trouble with the most basic of points to the point that the meaning is sometimes unclear.
If pro sites don't suit your fancy, dissect anything GWB has ever said.
"More and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
If your friends come over for a dinner party and have a chat, they will make hundreds of errors in the course of the evening; such is the nature of conversation. AI is a digital extension of conversation, and thus not a place for perfect grammar and spelling.
A lengthy blurb on the topic form someone who makes lotz and lotz ov typin erorz on me big phancy keybored (how I miss a thumb board).
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
- Joined: Nov 2003
- Location: at the range...
- Posts: 4,475
- offline
- Select All Posts By This User

Yes, yes, yes, warfare. The Warfair let's all go!
I've let several of yours go. Not anymore.
You had better be A number one perfect from now on.
But at least my posts have some subject matter pertaining to the discussion at hand. Not trying to appear clever by dwelling on the other's spelling or typos.
Boo hoo. Chill out, jimmac. Stop looking for a reason to be offended, K? As usual, you think that my post is "all about you." Well, it's not "all about you." Sorry. You simply gave the slightest spark for another idea. I was simply pointing out how appropriate the new spelling might turn out being... we may have created a new and very usable term concerning the GWOT.
- Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence
Recent Discussions
- › Editorial: Apple's billions are building an empire for the future 13 seconds ago
- › Apple details 'extraordinary amount' of taxes it pays in testimony... 21 seconds ago
- › Apple's retail stores now earn record $58 per visitor 21 seconds ago
- › The very real damage done by anti-gay BIGOTS--why marriage equality... 1 minute ago
- › Rumor: Apple testing 1.5" OLED displays for wearable 'iWatch' 12 minutes ago
- › Apple debuts new iPhone discounts, subsidies to gain ground in India 14 minutes ago
- › Looking to pull even with Apple, Samsung to pay developers for... 15 minutes ago
- › Google engineers talk fragmentation, how to make Android work for... 26 minutes ago
- › Rumor: Production of Apple's 33% lighter fifth-gen iPad to begin in... 38 minutes ago
- › Domestic Mac sales flat in April, viewed as slight positive for Apple 42 minutes ago
Recent Reviews
- › Apple iPod nano - 16GB, Silver MC526LL/A (6th Generation) by cc420
- › Apple iPad with Retina Display Wi-Fi + Verizon/Sprint 4G - 64GB,... by Aaron Krahn
- › 13.3-inch Apple MacBook Air MD231LL/A (Mid-2012) by ahilal
- › Apple Time Capsule - 2TB (MD032LL/A) by biyahero
- › Apple iPad Wi-Fi - 64GB, White (MD330LL/A) by raeganapril
- › Apple Magic Trackpad (MC380LL/A) by WisdomSeed
- › Aperture 3 by bcbcbroderick
- › 17-inch Apple MacBook Pro MD311LL/A (Late 2011) by bcbcbroderick
- › Apple iPod touch - 32GB, Black MC544LL/A (4th Generation) by bcbcbroderick
- › Apple iPod touch - 8 GB, White MD057LL/A (4th Generation) by bcbcbroderick
New Apple Wikis
- › 2013 'Modified' iPod touch by Mikeycampbell81
- › 2013 MacBook Pros by Mikeycampbell81
- › iPad mini 2 with Retina display by Mikeycampbell81
- › 2013 iPhone 5S by Mikeycampbell81
- › Trade in your old devices for holiday cash by Mikeycampbell81
- › How to sell your old iPad for cash by Mikeycampbell81
- › How to offset the cost of a new iPhone by... by Mikeycampbell81
- › How to save money on AppleCare extended... by Kasper
- › How to offset the cost of a new iPad mini by... by Mikeycampbell81
- › Apple Prototypes by Mikeycampbell81
About AppleInsider | Join the Community | Advertise
© 2013 AppleInsider is powered by Huddler Tech | FAQ | Support | Privacy/TOS | Site Map







