I have read several of his books in the past. I don't own any of them, so I can't reference page numbers. Understand?
Why would you have read such nonsense in the first place? You can't quote anything specific because you haven't read anything other than sound bytes via the internet (if that).
Sorry I overgeneralized.. I meant charging to sell books that aren't proven or you don't think are true on the topic of 9/11. You consistently complain about Gage and such selling these books and DvD's which frankly I don't see how are much different than the 9/11 commission report and the books and magazines you come here promoting.
I love SI magazine, this issue didn't just pick the 9/11 truther's it hit them with a sledgehammer. God of the gaps for the loose.
Researcher? Where did he say he was that? I kind of assumed that, like all 9/11 Deniers, he expects others to do the heavy lifting for him. You know, like all the morons that spend their money buying books and dvd's and other materials "calling" for a "new investigation"... Why not just use your money on a "new investigation"? All the people - Richard Gage, Judy Wood, etc., that are making money off of these rubes, in ten years they have not set aside $1 for this "new investigation" they claim to think is absolutely critical. Gage knows how to set up a 503(c) - he has one. Why not set up a 503(c) to accept donations and sponsorships to fund a new, independent investigation? It's a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway: Because they know that a "new" investigation would show the same thing as all the previous ones, and their gravy train would be over.
I know how to use a library.. Since the catelogs were on cards.. Now they're on computers.. So I know how to type in the book, and receive results that, we don't have it! Anyway you've missed the point.. The point I was trying to make to Hannibal, not you.. Your library is just as likely to have a Gage's literature and materials about 9/11 speculation.. He's excusing the sale of snake oil which he promotes because you can get that same snake oil for free at the library, well same as the Gage snake oil he protests against, no?
Your previous investigations have proven little.. As evidenced by your inability to show the proof they uncovered.
No I sure don't.. I see little difference between Gage's books about what he speculates about 9/11 and that of the commission or these other ones Hannibal is so actively promoting.. Can you explain the difference?
Whatever informative materials you're whining about being sold as "snake oil" ok? Was it Jones? Who cares.. You whined about selling of books/DvD's about 9/11 to the gullible, did you not? So whoever sold it, whatever they sold: THAT (Speaking of arguing about symantics)
Oh I'm sure it's just a marvelous article. I'll make sure to buy a subscription.. Don't worry, I'll be sure to tell them Hannibal referred me.. I don't want you missing out on your commission for referring the snake oil.
Haha ... Let's make this thread about me, too. When you take time to research the material, let me know.
The thread is about content which you have no link to but still said was totally awesome. The thread should technically be dead.. But I find it amusing how you like to pretend like the content was there on the link at one point, when even the most cursory glance at that link and magazine website clearly shows they do NOT post current issues online; they post back issues online. I also find it entertaining how you whine about certain people for selling books and DvD's to make money while at the same time promoting a magazine over the internet. And when am I supposed to find the time to research these fabulous articles? You left the proof for one of your claims buried in 40GB worth of data in an apparent bid to have me going on a wild goose chase to find the needle in the haystack or otherwise just assume your proof is really there. I'll be downloading files now.
This is a lie. He did give a link to the content, the content was available, and you waited almost a full month to respond. You snooze you lose. Oh, and in going back I noticed something that I had missed before: You don't know what the word ancillary means, do you? I did not say the targets were chosen with NO care about the number of people killed. I said it was an ancillary concern. I said they care less about death toll then symbolic effect. I did not say they don't care about death toll at all. I don't see how I could have made the statement any more clear. Leave it to a truther to read what they wanted to read.
That link is to their main homepage.. Not content.. This website doesn't post the current edition.. They sell the current edition.. Did you notice on that link: coming soon, web version of the March/April issue? But July/August already came and went? Give me a break. Did you click this link and see it for yourself? Speaking of going back for things you've missed, you didn't miss the most obvious and important things.. Who are you talking about? Again, you're making an argument about the motive behind the target selection and the priority of concerns in making such determinations, so I'll ask for a third time now, who picked the targets?
Yes, On the 6th. When it was first posted. Did you click it then? By your standards how would anyone know for sure? The 19 hijackers can't tell you who directed them. They're dead. KSM admitted to it, but you disregard his testimony. Bin Laden admitted involvement but you disregard his testimony. The CIA has evidence, but you disregard their conclusions. Who do YOU think planned it and what is your evidence? Does it meet your own burden of proof?
What was the most compelling article? I never said anyone here should be able to know for sure. YOU however seem to know for sure. You claimed as a fact why the targets were chosen and it is now clear you don't even know who chose the targets! I find that coming up with an explanation about why the targets were picked without the necessary details about the plotting of the attack itself is going to be an exercize in speculation. I have no problems with speculating and in this case, reasoning can include the size of the targets i.e. the likelyhood of rookie pilots hitting them and acheiving a successful attack, symbolic value of the targets, and death toll are all possible considerations. I don't know to what degrees and can't know which, if any, were the paramount reasons. I won't claim my speculation is fact, unlike you. They possibly could have if your government only followed their leads instead of sit on their arse allowing the attacks to happen. But they can't now, so why are you mentioning here something that you know isn't going to help you? What, the testimony they tortured out of him? The testimony he only gave after they deprived him of sleep long enough to make him delusional and then poured water into his lungs? The plea of guilty his terminated military commission NEVER accepted, and couldn't accept until mental competency hearings? The testimony where he "confesses" to an unprecedentedly MASSIVE list of his alleged plots some of which proven to have NOT existed? The testimony which could NOT be corrobarated by any shred of outside forensic evidence? He also denied involvement in another, more clear video with less anomolies in it. The guy claimed two seperate things so such "testimony" becomes useless. Testimony is alright to supplement an argument but if ALL you have is testimony then yes I'll have to disregard it as there are OTHER explanations for such testimony, e.g. torture, threats to his family etc. OR just taking credit because they want to be badass martyrs and that could boost recruiting and bring them loads of fame in the terrorist community. WHAT EVIDENCE? I don't know.. It is very possible and somewhat likely that your story is true and these people from AQ did it.. It's also possible the Mossad planned it and outsourced it to Muslim fanatics.. Maybe the PNAC think tank conjured it up and outsourced it. Maybe it was another terrorist group that did it, maybe they were Saudis with ties to the SA government or even SA government personnell, and KSM is the obvious scapegoat to cover for their Saudi allies. I'm not for sure to be honest. And no these do not meet any burden of proof. I have BELIEFS of which may be more or less likely. Of course, I would make sure I bloody had proof if I were to promote any of these as fact and claim them as fact as the blue sky.
WHAT EVIDENCE? WHAT EVIDENCE? WHAT EVIDENCE? WHAT EVIDENCE? So basically you're just here to (*)(*)(*)(*) in the wind? There is a preponderance of evidence to show that my statements are the most likely scenario. There is little to no evidence that your statements are even remotely possible.
