False Flag Terrorism

[Hollus]

Its a long one, but it documents the undisputed history of self inflicted terrorist attacks that have been used to justify statecraft. Anyone who is unable to grasp the concept of why an event like 9/11 could have been orchastrated as a false flag attack should watch this documentary in full.

TerrorStorm

[bush_cheney2004]

PolyNewbie redux?

[Riverwind]

Its a long one, but it documents the undisputed history of self inflicted terrorist attacks that have been used to justify statecraft. Anyone who is unable to grasp the concept of why an event like 9/11 could have been orchastrated as a false flag attack should watch this documentary in full.

Sigh. Such an argument means nothing unless you can provide a plausible storyline that explains how the US government could have planned such a hoax.

[Hollus]

Its a long one, but it documents the undisputed history of self inflicted terrorist attacks that have been used to justify statecraft. Anyone who is unable to grasp the concept of why an event like 9/11 could have been orchastrated as a false flag attack should watch this documentary in full.

Sigh. Such an argument means nothing unless you can provide a plausible storyline that explains how the US government could have planned such a hoax.

They did before numerous times. History repeats itself. Im sure your very busy trolling the boards with your self-righteous assertations, but if you have any interest in reality you will take the time to watch. But probably you will not.

[Riverwind]

They did before numerous times. History repeats itself.

Claiming it could have happened does not mean it _did_ happen. Your argument is meaningless.

Your argument that you 'don't need an alternative storyline' is an after the fact justification because you cannot come up with one. If you could come up with one you would post it and you know it. You would also find that any story line that you could come up with would have as many holes as the government storyline.

Why don't answer these simple questions:

1) why should your theories be taken seriously when they have so many gaping holes in them (i.e. the lack of any coherent storyline)?

2) What makes you so special that you don't need to live up to the same standard of proof that you demand from the US government?

[Hollus]

Do you dispute the fact that the United States has been directly involved in false-flag operations?

Do you dispute the fact that these operations remained undiscovered until whistle-blowers and/or the release of classified documents revealed the nature of their design?

It is the very nature of a false-flag attack to deceive and elude detection. It is therefore quite unrealistic to demand someone who is without the access to classified information to account for a detailed description of the true event. You ask for an alternative story-line and claim that any such story-line would have as many holes as the Government story-line. This is true because the government story-line lacks details, and any alternative story without details will also have holes in it. However, it is not beyond reasonable for someone to provide evidence that the existing story-line is false and that the creators of that story-line are concealing the true nature of the event.

[runningdog]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

[kuzadd]

Its a long one, but it documents the undisputed history of self inflicted terrorist attacks that have been used to justify statecraft. Anyone who is unable to grasp the concept of why an event like 9/11 could have been orchastrated as a false flag attack should watch this documentary in full.

Sigh. Such an argument means nothing unless you can provide a plausible storyline that explains how the US government could have planned such a hoax.

Such an arguement is relevant unless the Bush administration can provide credible evidence, to show, it was not a flase flag.

[Riverwind]

Such an arguement is relevant unless the Bush administration can provide credible evidence, to show, it was not a false flag.

Why? You are accusing Bush of being a mass murder. A crime that would likely carry the death penalty in most states in the US. Yet you don't have a single witness or single piece of conclusive evidence that links the accused to the alleged crime. In such cases, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

[Riverwind]

However, it is not beyond reasonable for someone to provide evidence that the existing story-line is false and that the creators of that story-line are concealing the true nature of the event.

Not an excuse. If you expect the government to live up to a certain standard of evidence then you must also meet that same standard. To claim otherwise is simple hypocrisy.

[Hollus]

However, it is not beyond reasonable for someone to provide evidence that the existing story-line is false and that the creators of that story-line are concealing the true nature of the event.

Not an excuse. If you expect the government to live up to a certain standard of evidence then you must also meet that same standard. To claim otherwise is simple hypocrisy.

Do you dispute the fact that the United States has been directly involved in false-flag operations?

Do you dispute the fact that these operations remained undiscovered until whistle-blowers and/or the release of classified documents revealed the nature of their design?

It is the very nature of a false-flag attack to deceive and elude detection. It is therefore quite unrealistic to demand someone who is without the access to classified information to account for a detailed description of the true event. You ask for an alternative story-line and claim that any such story-line would have as many holes as the Government story-line. This is true because the government story-line lacks details, and any alternative story without details will also have holes in it. However, it is not beyond reasonable for someone to provide evidence that the existing story-line is false and that the creators of that story-line are concealing the true nature of the event.

Riverwind, you sure are choosy of what you resopond to. Ive responded with a logical explaniation, yet you ignore this and regurgitate your assertion as if it was not addressed. Its kind of hard to debate with you, when you act like this. Respond to my full post. Not just a sentence out of its context. Otherwise you have no credibility.

[Riverwind]

It is the very nature of a false-flag attack to deceive and elude detection.

The very nature of conspiracy theories is to construct arguments that cannot be falsified. This ensures that the conspiracy theory advocates never have to live up to the standards of evidence that they demand from the people they accuse.

You are like someone that argues that god created the world 6000 years ago and dismisses fossil evidence by saying God created the fossils as well. It is circular and intellectually dishonest argument. Question for you: would you accept that argument from a creationist? If not why do you expect others to accept the exact same argument when it comes to 9/11?

If there was a conspiracy then we would have heard from whistle blowers by now. However, in your cozy little fantasy world the lack of whistle blowers is further 'evidence' of the plot.

I have alerady addressed your other point: your could have a 1000 examples of prior 'false flag' operations but those examples would not provide any evidence that 9/11 was such a hoax. Your argument is a red herring.

If you want to claim that a 'false flag' operation occurred on 9/11 then you MUST explain the contradictions in your argument. If Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon then where did the plane go? More importantly WHY would they go to the trouble of making a plane dissappear when it would be much simpler to crash the plane somewhere? The only rational conclusion is Flight 77 did, in fact, crash into the pentagon and no one should take your argument seriously.

[M.Dancer]

Conspiracy threads are like a bad case of recuring herpes, without the over the counter creams...

[BC_chick]

Conspiracy threads are like a bad case of recuring herpes, without the over the counter creams...

Way too much information Dancer.

[M.Dancer]

Conspiracy threads are like a bad case of recuring herpes, without the over the counter creams...

Way too much information Dancer.

I'm sure you will find one day it will come in handy

[JerrySeinfeld]

I see your false-flag operation... and raise you one world climate crisis conspiracy.

[Argus]

Its a long one, but it documents the undisputed history of self inflicted terrorist attacks that have been used to justify statecraft. Anyone who is unable to grasp the concept of why an event like 9/11 could have been orchastrated as a false flag attack should watch this documentary in full.

Sigh. Such an argument means nothing unless you can provide a plausible storyline that explains how the US government could have planned such a hoax.

Such an arguement is relevant unless the Bush administration can provide credible evidence, to show, it was not a flase flag.

When is the Chretien government going to provide credible evidence to show it was not involved? I mean, if the standard now it to prove negatives how are you going to prove YOU weren't involved?

[M.Dancer]

Kuzadd is behind the missile attack on the pentagon......he refuses to release the tape that show him pressing the button.

[ScottSA]

Kuzadd is behind the missile attack on the pentagon......he refuses to release the tape that show him pressing the button.

If you take the first and fourth letters of his name, and add l,l,o,n,y,s,s, and r, and then carefully rearrange them, you get "grassy knoll." This startling new fact brought to you by Conspiracies r us. Oh, and a "g."

[Hollus]

The very nature of conspiracy theories is to construct arguments that cannot be falsified. This ensures that the conspiracy theory advocates never have to live up to the standards of evidence that they demand from the people they accuse.

Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension. The point of my previous post being:

I have not put forth a conspiracy theory. You keep demanding one, however I refuse to put forth a speculated theory at your behest. I (and others arguing against the Government story) are calling for an investigation into the events of 9/11 based on strong evidence that the government story is a bogus fairy-tale designed to soothe the goose stepping masses marching to the beat of the war drum. Put Bush and Cheney under oath to testify about the events of 9/11. Investigate the unprecedented failure to intercept wayward aircraft. Investgate the Intelligence failure that allowed Mohummad Atta to carry out attacts despite forewarning of the pending attacks. Investigate the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7. Investigate the insider trading in the days preceding 9/11. Investigate the motives behind Bush and Cheneys blocking of a public inquiry into 9/11.

Arguably the largest intelligence failure and air defence failure in the history of the United States and no one has been held accountable or investigated. Is the Bush administration not interested in how the countries defences failed? Do they not wish to learn how to better protect the country in the future?

You are like someone that argues that god created the world 6000 years ago and dismisses fossil evidence by saying God created the fossils as well. It is circular and intellectually dishonest argument. Question for you: would you accept that argument from a creationist? If not why do you expect others to accept the exact same argument when it comes to 9/11?

No this analogy does not fit. Evidence in support of evolution is solid and scientifically accepted. What evidence supports the governments story-line? The 9/11 Commission Report is full of omissions and distortions. So much so that former FBI Director Louis Freeh Charges 9/11 Commision with Cover-Up

"Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission Thursday saying it ignored – or "summarily rejected" – the most critical piece of intelligence that could have prevented the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001."

[Riverwind]

I have not put forth a conspiracy theory.

Claiming that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack is a conspiracy theory. Your failure to provide any sort of plausible story line simply illustrates that your claims are not particularly credible.

strong evidence that the government story is a bogus fairy-tale

No truthie, including yourself, has presented anything can could be described as a 'strong evidence' which supports your claims.

Arguably the largest intelligence failure and air defence failure in the history of the United States and no one has been held accountable or investigated.

The intelligence failure has been investigated and the turf wars between the various departments seem to be the primary cause. Perhaps some individuals have not been properly punished for their incompetence but arguing that the US government was incompetent is not the same as arguing that 9/11 was a hoax.

No this analogy does not fit. Evidence in support of evolution is solid and scientifically accepted.

Not by creationists. They argue that evolutionary theory is full of holes and not credible. And they are not actually incorrect - evolutionary theory does not explain everything but it explains enough that the majority of people accept it as fact. This is true of 9/11 and the government explanation - it explains enough and there is no need to cover all of the gaps. You argument is no different from that of a creationist because you refuse the accept the facts that are in front of you. Instead you try to explain away the contradictions by claiming that an all powerful government can keep any secret and is willing to anything - no matter how illogical.

[Hollus]

Claiming that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack is a conspiracy theory. Your failure to provide any sort of plausible story line simply illustrates that your claims are not particularly credible.

"conspiracy theory n.

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."

I claim the Government story is bogus and needs to be investigated. Thats not a conspiracy theory. Yes it does imply that a conspiracy exists, but I am merly challenging the official story as bunk and calling for an investigation.

No truthie, including yourself, has presented anything can could be described as a 'strong evidence' which supports your claims. The intelligence failure has been investigated and the turf wars between the various departments seem to be the primary cause. Perhaps some individuals have not been properly punished for their incompetence but arguing that the US government was incompetent is not the same as arguing that 9/11 was a hoax.

Bullshit. Infact you've just ignored it in my previous post regarding the intelligence investigation you mention.

Former FBI Director Charges 9/11 Cover-Up You could even refer to former FBI Director Louis Freeh as a whistle-blower.

[Riverwind]

I claim the Government story is bogus and needs to be investigated. Thats not a conspiracy theory. Yes it does imply that a conspiracy exists, but I am merely challenging the official story as bunk and calling for an investigation.

Useless semantics. Implying that a conspiracy exists is the same as openly advocating one. You yourself claimed that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon - you openly advocated a conspiracy theory there.

When confronted on your unwillingness to present a plausible alternate explanation you responded with a circular argument right out of the conspiracy theorist's handbook.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/17/122900.shtml]Former FBI Director Charges 9/11 Cover-Up[/url] You could even refer to former FBI Director Louis Freeh as a whistle-blower.

All that guy is claiming is that the government knew more than it claimed. He is _not_ claiming that the government planned the entire event. There is a _huge_ difference. I doubt Louis Freeh would ever suggest that Flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon. He may be a whistle blower but he certainly does not support your conspiracy theory. In fact, his comments actually undermine your claims because it does not make sense that he would 'blow the whistle' on relatively minor omissions the 9/11 report but not mention anything about the government planing the whole thing.

[Hollus]

Useless semantics. Implying that a conspiracy exists is the same as openly advocating one. You yourself claimed that flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon - you openly advocated a conspiracy theory there.

I made absolutly NO such claim! I simply highlighted the fact that the only survaillence videos in existance that show the impact of what hit the Pentagon have been confiscated and classified. I have called for the Freedom of Information Act to be honoured and for these tapes to be released as there should be no reason for them being withheld.

When confronted on your unwillingness to present a plausible alternate explanation you responded with a circular argument right out of the conspiracy theorist's handbook.

It may appear that way to you, but this is only because of your own presuppositions. Apperantly you have an inherent need for story-lines, which goes along way in explaining why you find it so hard to question the one you've been fed and swallowed. I imagine your very afraid of the idea that your government has not been completely forthright with you and is infact blocking your ability to investigate the nature of their machinations. And you should be. I openly admit that I dont know what happened that day, but I do know that what we're being told is far from the true story (or at the very least far from the whole story), and most certianly has been designed to be that way, so people like yourself will not question an event that has opened the door to unimaginable assults on humanity in the name of fighting terror.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Its probably marching in line like you.

All that guy is claiming is that the government knew more than it claimed. He is _not_ claiming that the government planned the entire event. There is a _huge_ difference. I doubt Louis Freeh would ever suggest that Flight 77 did not crash into the pentagon. He may be a whistle blower but he certainly does not support your conspiracy theory. In fact, his comments actually undermine your claims because it does not make sense that he would 'blow the whistle' on relatively minor omissions the 9/11 report but not mention anything about the government planing the whole thing.

Here you go misconstruing the article and what Ive said. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh is pointing to a deliberate cover-up by the 9/11 commision of the most critical piece of intelligence that could have prevented 9/11.

Freeh gave a blistering review of the Commission and says new revelations indicate it is "a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself."

An FBI Director deaming the 9/11 commision invalid and sympothising with 9/11 families desire for a new 9/11 commision.

"No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a ‘new' commission to investigate."

But wait a minute... He hasnt provided and alternate story-line! He must be a conspiracy theorist right?

[bush_cheney2004]

I claim the Government story is bogus and needs to be investigated. Thats not a conspiracy theory. Yes it does imply that a conspiracy exists, but I am merly challenging the official story as bunk and calling for an investigation.

Do you have standing? Can you submit an FOA request? How are you challenging the "official story"?

An investigation has already been completed.