OMG! Another gish gallop of the usual junk. Scott, please make your case without me having to go through hours of this sort of rubbish. Have some consideration, please! Most of that last batch was infantile garbage and now I've got to do it again? No. Make your point, and make it clear so I can stop running me around after you. It's a two-way street, Buddy.
Translation: The evidence he posted is so clear that if I try to obfuscate it, I'll just look silly so I'd better tap dance around it instead of addressing it. A sincere truth-seeker would look at the info and comment on it.
Keep posting it, it's important to any intelligent person who wants to hear all sides. Because that's what intelligent people do.
Cut the crap and state your case for a change. In this response you could have clarified your point, but you chose to troll instead like the last post. - - - Updated - - - Ad hom noted. If Scott can't state his case why should anyone bother? There is no need to make people look run around looking for a point. What kind of individual can't state a case and then moans when no-one answers his unstated question? WTF is with that? Perhaps you can tell me what Scott wants as you seem to know all about it? After all, by your quote you seem to think you're an intelligent person, can you tell me what he's on about?
He did, you don't want to hear it. So don't bother. I'm not into his head but he's on about the 9/11 fraud, that's obvious from his posts. I guess it's too difficult for you to figure that out. You're welcome.
Ad hom noted. You can't stop can you? Cool! Please show me the post number, as I must have missed it. He isn't considerate enough to re-state it. All I got out of it was a collection of unrelated videos and articles, mostly focussing upon the nebulous and the fanciful, nothing of much merit. Ad hom noted. You can't stop can you? Is that all you have in your arsenal now that logic and reason have abandoned you? So, you're a little unsure as well? Fraud is quite a vast umbrella, could you be specific if you know? I doubt you do, though. You're just running your mouth playing personal attack games.
Now to return to the topic: CIA director says unverified material in secret 9/11 pages "WASHINGTON — CIA Director John Brennan says a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 contains preliminary information about possible Saudi links to the attackers that hadn't been corroborated or checked out at the time. The Obama administration may soon release part of the material. Brennan tells NBC's "Meet the Press" there were "concerns about sensitive source of methods, investigative actions" and notes the Sept. 11 investigation still was underway. Brennan says the 9/11 Commission followed up on the preliminary information in the 28 pages and made "a very clear judgment" there was no evidence indicating "the Saudi government as an institution or Saudi officials individually" financially backed al-Qaida. He's concerned some might seize on "uncorroborated, unvetted information" and cite Saudi involvement, and says that would be "very, very inaccurate." http://www.stripes.com/news/us/cia-director-says-unverified-material-in-secret-9-11-pages-1.407315 The full interview: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/is...not-just-organization-it-s-phenomenon-n565546 It appears that 9/11 truth now acknowledges the fact that there were 19 hijackers, or are they cherry picking Graham's ideas that suit their own confirmation bias, and omitting the 'uncomfortable'? SEN. BOB GRAHAM: "Chuck, to me, the most important unanswered question of 9/11 is did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported? I think it's implausible to think that people who couldn't speak English, had never been in the United States before, as a group were not well-educated could have done that. So who was the most likely entity to have provided them that support? And I think all the evidence points to Saudi Arabia. We know that Saudi Arabia started Al Qaeda. It was a creation of Saudi-- of Saudi Arabia.. http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet-...1-2016-n565516 So, if the hijackers were real, then there was no need for CD (this applies to no-planers and those who don't believe the hijackers existed). Has the CD hypothesis been abandoned or is this an authentic example of the 'cognitive dissonance' that 9/11 truth love to project upon their opponents? This is a massive truther logic fail, and it disrupts their own partially formulated narrative.
For those who wish to sign the petition to release the 28 pages, here is the link: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//p...es-foreign-government-financing-911-hijackers It's now up to 1,772. Here are the results from the 2014 attempt: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...nd-walter-jones-r-nc-declassify-congressional Sadly, it only reached 2,027. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the 9/11 Commission Report: It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fund raising activities. Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.) 9/11 Commission Report Chapter 5.4 "A Money Trail?" page 171 pdf #188
The SAG yanked OBL's citizenship and declared AQ a terrorist organization in 1994 or 1995. The Senator is an idiot.
So, Scott has no real point to reply to, other than a nebulous belief? Thanks for your help, but I already figured that one out.
(from post #99) All of the serious viewers have checked out the info I referred to and they are watching and judging. You seem to be checkmated by that summary of proof of controlled demolition or you would simply look at the info and respond to it. If you don't do so, I suppose all I can say is "Checkmate". If you're not checkmated, start with the first point that's made. Just do the first two or three for now. We'll eventually do all of them.
Exactly, that's what intelligent people do, they look at the facts/evidence listen to both sides, especially those whom they feel are credible eyewitnesses and experts and judge for themselves. They don't need anonymous internet jockeys who label themselves "debunkers" telling them how and what to think.
Uproar Over the 28 Pages: The Saudi/CIA Connection? By Kristen Breitweiser (9/11 Widows Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken also sign their names to this blog) Excerpts (note the quotes are taken out of context to the blog but they are highlights of the blog, so please read the entire article for clarity) ... Zelikow has too many conflicts of interest to list in this blog. Suffice it to say that a critical portion of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report can be seen as merely a fairy-tale rendition (or intelligence "story") of Philip's design. ... After all, if the person in charge of torturing KSM wanted to obscure the Saudi role, is it a surprise that KSM would say what his torturer wanted to hear? Moreover, is it a surprise that the person or persons in charge of KSM's torture, who wanted to obscure the U.S. government's awareness of the threat and indeed specific knowledge of many of the terrorist activities before the attack, would elicit a story consistent with that goal? ... it was Zelikow and Snell who "re-wrote" the entire Saudi section of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report -- leaving out all the damning, incriminating information. ... when Tom and Lee say that they "found no evidence linking the Saudi's to the 9/11 attacks," pay careful attention to the cute use of their words, "found no evidence." Because while conceitedly there may not then have been conclusive proof, there were certainly indications and evidence that required further and immediate follow-up. ... as someone who has looked for specific documents on the National Archives website, I can state emphatically that many of the 9/11 Commission's most vital and damning documents remain redacted, withheld, classified and/or unavailable to the public. [Note from the 9/11 Commission itself: "There is approximately 570 cubic feet of textual records. A large percentage of the Commission's records are national security classified files." - http://www.archives.gov/research/9-11/] ... I certainly hope the U.S. government does not expect the 9/11 families to ignore fifteen years of their cover-up and capitalized "opportunities" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. (Quoting Condi Rice here in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks where she said, "how can we capitalize on these opportunities" -- that's right, she called the mass murder of 3000 innocent people an "opportunity" that should be "capitalized upon"). ... Rest assured, we will never give up nor will we ever go away. Read the entire article ... http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/...1-Saudi-Arabia_Philip-Zelikow-160502-323.html
I expect anyone to say anything the torturers want the ones they are torturing to say. Would you expect otherwise? I believe that if you were subject to the same tortures you would "confess" to being the mastermind of 9/11 if that's what the torturers wanted you to "confess" to, I probably would too. The 9/11 Commission Report relied heavily on a "confession" from a detainee who was mercilessly tortured but wasn't allowed to read what he signed. The Senate Torture Report claims the tortures yielded NO actionable intelligence. In any case the blog is from the Jersey Girls, so ask them what they think, why are you asking me?
OBL had plenty of reasons to start a war between the Saudis and the US... and most Americans are too dumb about the ME and KSA in particular to know who their friends are so they are aiding and abetting the terrorist's schemes.
Whether that's true or not, it has nothing to do with what I just posted. "most Americans are aiding and abetting the terrorist's schemes" because they're "too dumb about the ME and KSA in particular to know who their friends are"? Yikes. The question I have for you is what do you believe you know about the ME and KSA that makes you believe you're so well informed on those two subjects? Do you have inside information from the CIA or those running Gitmo as to KSA or is all your information just what you've been fed from the MSM? The 9/11 Commission got all their information from 3rd parties (the torturers) because they weren't allowed to interview the detainees directly but perhaps you are special and you did personally interview KSM so you're much more informed than the rest of us.
Not at all. Controlled demolition is easy to disprove. Remember, it is YOU who has the burden of proof and you haven't even made a claim. Why can't you state your claim? Ok, what is the first point? Why can't you state your point? Can't you articulate it? In all your responses you could have articulated your point, yet you refuse to, why is that? I'm not wasting time with you. Do it or stay silent, but don't whinge to me if you can't tell me your point.
Boobtube spamming being assembled ... he will obviously post the New Pearl Harbor vid (which I have watched in full on a slow night) ... full of (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles as the omitted info is so glaringly obvious ...
All DRG's mad claims have long been debunked, and I'm not watching that crap (yet again). If Scott can't make a point without a dumbass video, I won't bother with him. He's been using the same MO for years, and he posts the same things over and over again.
