Whats the worst that could happen?

[syntax252]

Let me spell it out for you:

 

 

Response A: "That opinion is moronic!"

 

Response B: "You are a moron!"

 

 

Guess which one is less acceptable.

 

Well it is at least refreshing to see that you agree that his opinions are moronic.

 

But don't you see that the idea being promoted (that GW Bush was complicit in the events of 9/11) are at least as insulting to an American as anything I said about Timetraveler?

 

Are there no limits on what one can suggest as a serious hypothesis on this forum?

[Newtonian]

Pearl Harbor--I have read many accounts about how Roosvelt and Churchill got together and planed that one just to get the US involved in WWII.

I have the official committee findings on that Syntax if your interested.They new the attack was imminent.Rather than a conspiracy it was the incompetence of individual men,and their failure to communicate.One of which was Roosevelt himself.

[Sayonara]

Well it is at least refreshing to see that you agree that his opinions are moronic.

Do not put words in my mouth.

 

 

But don't you see that the idea being promoted (that GW Bush was complicit in the events of 9/11) are at least as insulting to an American as anything I said about Timetraveler?

I could not give a flying weasel - it's not pertinent to my issue with the way you respond to people you disagree with.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself, having to be told how to behave in public.

 

 

Are there no limits on what one can suggest as a serious hypothesis on this forum?

You have read the pseudoscience forum?

[TimeTraveler]

What the Hell is "government complexity" anyway? Is he trying to say government complicity?

 

I meant complexity. Although both are considered.

 

First he wants to take the high road and refuse to be party to an argument, then he comes right back with the same old off-the-wall, lame arguments that he has been parroting since the beginning. And if I point out the rather obvious fact that he is a weapons grade jerk, you "intellectuals" rip your clothing and cry "blasphemy."

 

Refusing to return insults with response is different than refusing to be party to an arguement.

 

According to Timetraveler, the 9/11 commission has it wrong!! according to him, the only authority who's opinion is worth reading is this jerk Ruppert who is a reject from the local fruitcake acadamy.

 

Thats your spin. Both of those statements do not represent what I said.

 

The problem with Ruppert is that he is a liar and he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

In your opinion, which is inaccurate and I disagree with.

 

And you call unsubstiantiated allegation "evidence?"

 

Does it matter at all to you that the 9/11 commission found that the things that TT quotes are bullshit?

 

Does it matter to you that the 9/11 commission did not even look into 90% of what I am talking about?

 

He has accused the President of the United States as being complicit in the worst attack against civilians on American soil in the history of the nation.

 

I have done no such thing' date=' but I have said I believe it is possible.

 

He, in another forum has charged that the Vice President, the Sec. of Defense and the assistand Sec of defense "may have" organized the antrax letters being sent to members of our Senate.

 

Change and to or. Remember I made that statement after you asked me to make a "guess". There is a few other suspects, some deranged scientist perhaps. Thing is the ames strain,which is what was sent to congress, is a product of a CIA weapons research program. It is apparent that it originated from within the US. Who sent it will probably never be known, unless further investigation takes place. It is a realistically possible government complicity was involved in the sending of the anthrax. But this is a whole seperate issue.

 

But for one to insist that the President is culpable in one of the most vicious mass murders of all time, is insulting to every American in the country.

 

And predetermining that the US is capable of no wrong doing without even taking a look at the evidence is insulting to not only Americans but to the entire global community.

[Newtonian]

Syntax wether its rubbish or not.Do you not think after the events of 9/11 it should be a priority of your country and fellow citizens that a thorough investigation should take place.Its evident that this has not been the case.

For instance many have seen the M.moore and A.Jones documentaries.Regardless of their editing abilities to portray conspiracy.Irregular and inconsistancies of fact merit full investigation.If you feel that it has been investigated fully,thats your opinion.Equally TT has his own opinions.

I have one glaring anomaly i would like explanation of.In previous documentaries the plane that the heroic passengers made crash over pensylvania.It was the finding of those documentaries, crash investigators said that the debris was spread over too large an area to be a crash.On appearence it looked like an explosion in flight.

 

How odd then that very recently your secretary of defence in a TV interview gave reference to the plane being 'shot down'.Before correcting himself,are we to assume that it was a simple slip of the tongue.Or something else.

Or what about your president giving an interview saying he seen the first plane hit on the news...it wasnt on the news until the next day.When amatuer film was presented to the media.

It doesnt mean anything sinister actually took place,but i know for the two most important people in your country to say those things.Im not suprised that people like TT want answers,it certainly merits a fuller independant inquiry

[Phi for All]

Well it is at least refreshing to see that you agree that his opinions are moronic.

 

But don't you see that the idea being promoted (that GW Bush was complicit in the events of 9/11) are at least as insulting to an American as anything I said about Timetraveler?

I'm an American, I don't believe Bush was complicit in the events of 9/11, but I'm not insulted by anyone promoting ideas that he was. I beleive it is my duty as a voter to listen to any reasonable argument concerning my government. I have heard many things about the events of 9/11 that seem very fishy to me. I want further investigation and I want it by done people who aren't commisioned by those who may be complicit.

 

syntax252, you have the potential to bring a lifetime of gathered wisdom to this forum via your posts, yet I see you squandering that opportunity day by day in petty little personal attacks and name calling. I know you are capable of more.[/member]

 

[Moderator] Trying to gain the upper hand in a debate by ad hominem attacks is wrong, but using the words jerk, asshole and moron about a fellow member is inflammatory trolling. You second suspension will be for 1 week. Whether or not it starts tomorrow is completely up to you. [/Mod]

[syntax252]

I have the official committee findings on that Syntax if your interested.They new the attack was imminent.Rather than a conspiracy it was the incompetence of individual men,and their failure to communicate.One of which was Roosevelt himself.

 

It depends on who's version of reality you subscribe to, doesn't it?

[syntax252]

Syntax wether its rubbish or not.Do you not think after the events of 9/11 it should be a priority of your country and fellow citizens that a thorough investigation should take place.Its evident that this has not been the case.

For instance many have seen the M.moore and A.Jones documentaries.Regardless of their editing abilities to portray conspiracy.Irregular and inconsistancies of fact merit full investigation.If you feel that it has been investigated fully' date='thats your opinion.Equally TT has his own opinions.

I have one glaring anomaly i would like explanation of.In previous documentaries the plane that the heroic passengers made crash over pensylvania.It was the finding of those documentaries, crash investigators said that the debris was spread over too large an area to be a crash.On appearence it looked like an explosion in flight.

 

How odd then that very recently your secretary of defence in a TV interview gave reference to the plane being 'shot down'.Before correcting himself,are we to assume that it was a simple slip of the tongue.Or something else.

Or what about your president giving an interview saying he seen the first plane hit on the news...it wasnt on the news until the next day.When amatuer film was presented to the media.

It doesnt mean anything sinister actually took place,but i know for the two most important people in your country to say those things.Im not suprised that people like TT want answers,it certainly merits a fuller independant inquiry[/quote']

 

 

The event has been investigated in a most complete fashion. That was what the 9/11 commission was all about.

 

Just because there are always questions that someone may think may needs addressing is not a reasonable reason to discount the findings of this commission.

 

The Michael Moore's and the Mike Rupperts in the world have their agenda, and that agenda is to cast doubt so that they can make monet on books and "documentaries."

 

Few people take them seriousely, although there are always some.

 

Can you think of an event in history where all parties are in agreement as to what happened?

 

Neither can I.

[syntax252]

 

I'm an American' date=' I don't believe Bush was complicit in the events of 9/11, but I'm not insulted by anyone promoting ideas that he was. I beleive it is my duty as a voter to listen to any reasonable argument concerning my government. I have heard many things about the events of 9/11 that seem very fishy to me. I want further investigation and I want it by done people who aren't commisioned by those who may be complicit.

 

syntax252, you have the potential to bring a lifetime of gathered wisdom to this forum via your posts, yet I see you squandering that opportunity day by day in petty little personal attacks and name calling. I know you are capable of more.[/member']

 

[Moderator] Trying to gain the upper hand in a debate by ad hominem attacks is wrong, but using the words jerk, asshole and moron about a fellow member is inflammatory trolling. You second suspension will be for 1 week. Whether or not it starts tomorrow is completely up to you. [/Mod]

 

 

The key word in your post is REASONABLE.

 

So far, I have seen no reasonable evidence to suggest that the current administration was complicit in the events of 9/11.

 

If, as an American, you are not offended by this kind of garbage, then I feel bad for you. Can it be that your partisan views on politics have enhanced your ability to ignore the implied affront to your judgement and the judgement of the American public at large?

[Pangloss]

So... it's okay to be offensive and attack people personally, when you've been offended?

[Phi for All]

So far, I have seen no reasonable evidence to suggest that the current administration was complicit in the events of 9/11.

And that is obviously ample justification for your opinion, but if you want to refute the opinion of someone else, you need to do more than hide behind the findings of the 9/11 Commission (which TT has reasonably pointed out may be biased, and even given you credible reasons why), or ask loaded questions with foregone conclusions like why Ruppert hasn't interviewed Rumsfeld, Rice, etc, or strawmanning TT's "Bush may be complicit" into "President is a murderer", or even suggesting that your opinion is that of all Americans. I think we all realize how highly offended you are by TT's suggestions, but he has raised his points in a debate forum in a valid manner. Debate him likewise, bring out your own studies and refute him point by point, but STOP attacking him with ad hominem, straw man and poisoning the well fallacies.

 

If, as an American, you are not offended by this kind of garbage, then I feel bad for you. Can it be that your partisan views on politics have enhanced your ability to ignore the implied affront to your judgement and the judgement of the American public at large?

I don't view TT's opinion in this matter as an implied affront to my judgement. That is your anger talking. And my views on the Bush administration are not partisan at all. I don't like much about what the man has done while in office, and there were many things I didn't like about what Clinton did in office (mostly his FCC changes and corporate kowtowing; the Monica thing was not government).

 

I don't hold the office of US President sacred the way you seem to. I think it's important to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. I want to hear what the fringe is accusing the administration of, and I will continue to take most of it with a grain of salt, but I will also continue to weigh the arguments. I have not heard good rebuttals on many of the 9/11 issues, especially from the Commission. They are puzzling and not in a fun kind of puzzly way.

 

Even you would have to admit that, while there was little complicity on the part of the administration implied when the 9/11 Commission was formed, the fact that there is now does put a bit of a pall on the validity of their findings.

[syntax252]

And that is obviously ample justification for your opinion' date=' but if you want to refute the opinion of someone else, you need to do more than hide behind the findings of the 9/11 Commission (which TT has reasonably pointed out may be biased, and even given you credible reasons why), or ask loaded questions with foregone conclusions like why Ruppert hasn't interviewed Rumsfeld, Rice, etc, or strawmanning TT's "Bush may be complicit" into "President is a murderer", or even suggesting that your opinion is that of all Americans. I think we all realize how highly offended you are by TT's suggestions, but he has raised his points in a debate forum in a valid manner. Debate him likewise, bring out your own studies and refute him point by point, but STOP attacking him with ad hominem, straw man and poisoning the well fallacies.

 

I don't view TT's opinion in this matter as an implied affront to my judgement. That is your anger talking. And my views on the Bush administration are not partisan at all. I don't like much about what the man has done while in office, and there were many things I didn't like about what Clinton did in office (mostly his FCC changes and corporate kowtowing; the Monica thing was not government).

 

I don't hold the office of US President sacred the way you seem to. I think it's important to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. I want to hear what the fringe is accusing the administration of, and I will continue to take most of it with a grain of salt, but I will also continue to weigh the arguments. I have not heard good rebuttals on many of the 9/11 issues, especially from the Commission. They are puzzling and not in a fun kind of puzzly way.

 

Even you would have to admit that, while there was little complicity on the part of the administration implied when the 9/11 Commission was formed, the fact that there is now does put a bit of a pall on the validity of their findings.[/quote']

 

 

There is nothing wrong with holding officers in our government accountable. That is precisely what we did when we held the 9/11 investigation.

 

But, guess what? We investigated and we found that the administration was not culpable in the event. It is like a trial, it is over. Bush is innocent.

 

I don't think it is necessary to refute any and all questions that any nut want's to write a book about. As I said earlier, there is no event in the history of mankind that everyone is in agreement about.

 

Ruppert writes a book to make money. Moore makes a documentary for money and fame. There will always be simple minded people who will read the books and view the documentaries and say "gee whiz you don't suppose that 2 + 2 actually IS 5 do you?"

 

TT has been trying to promote this garbage on this forum and other forums for several months. He has repeatedly cited speculation as "evidence" and said that the president was complicit in 9/11, but when he is nailed on it, he cries flame and deny's that he said it.

 

If my remarks about him personally were outside the rules here on this forum, fine! I don't make the rules. But it is his MESSAGE that is garbage and just as long as I am allowed to post here, that is what I will be pointing out.

[Phi for All]

But it is his MESSAGE that is garbage and just as long as I am allowed to post here, that is what I will be pointing out.

Clashings of opinion are normal. Keep them from being personal and you'll have no problems with your account.

 

On a side note, and this is for EVERYBODY reading this, it would be nice if we could move on with other pertinent arguments when one argument fails to bring needed clarity to the threads. To keep endlessly rehashing the same points seems to foment these personal-type attacks and name-calling, which is certainly not limited to this thread or even sub-forum.

[Sayonara]

TT has been trying to promote this garbage on this forum and other forums for several months. He has repeatedly cited speculation as "evidence" and said that the president was complicit in 9/11, but when he is nailed on it, he cries flame and deny's that he said it.

When you flame people you can fully expect them to "cry flame". What he has been denying are your incessant strawman attacks.

 

You are entitled to any opinion you can dream up, and you are free to counter any argument that is presented here. However, one way or the other you will not be behaving in this bullying and personally offensive fashion on SFN any more. I hope that's crystal clear.

[TimeTraveler]

The key word in your post is REASONABLE.

 

So far, I have seen no reasonable evidence to suggest that the current administration was complicit in the events of 9/11.

 

I have offered it to you, its in a 600 page book. A book that you claim is written purely for money and by someone who is not credible. I understand that opinion, but that is your opinion and I do not share it. I don't believe his research is for money, nor do I believe he is not credible. And you have shown no conclusive evidence to support that hypothesis.

 

The evidence is too thick to post it all here, I'm going to attempt to get small pieces of it down in another thread but it will take time and alot of steps. If you think its complete nonsense and hogwash, don't read it, ignore it. I'm not here to offend anyone, and if you feel I have offended you then I apologize.

[syntax252]

I have offered it to you' date=' its in a 600 page book. A book that you claim is written purely for money and by someone who is not credible. I understand that opinion, but that is your opinion and I do not share it. I don't believe his research is for money, nor do I believe he is not credible. And you have shown no conclusive evidence to support that hypothesis.

 

The evidence is too thick to post it all here, I'm going to attempt to get small pieces of it down in another thread but it will take time and alot of steps. If you think its complete nonsense and hogwash, don't read it, ignore it. I'm not here to offend anyone, and if you feel I have offended you then I apologize.[/quote']

 

 

Nooooooooo, you have not.

 

You have offered speculation and conjecture born out of the furtile imagination of someone who wanted to write a book for profit.

[TimeTraveler]

I have one glaring anomaly i would like explanation of.In previous documentaries the plane that the heroic passengers made crash over pensylvania.It was the finding of those documentaries' date=' crash investigators said that the debris was spread over too large an area to be a crash.On appearence it looked like an explosion in flight.

 

How odd then that very recently your secretary of defence in a TV interview gave reference to the plane being 'shot down'.Before correcting himself,are we to assume that it was a simple slip of the tongue.Or something else.[/quote']

 

I don't know much about this particular case, I have heard that they found debri from the plane over a hill, in a lake over 600 meters away. Some have said the debri was all small lightweight stuff that the wind blew there from the crash site, others have argued that the debri was way to large for that to be possible and the only logical explination of the debri getting that far away is if the plane actually blew up in the air.

 

Either way I'm not really sure how that matters, besides the fact that if it was shot down then someone would have been lying, and I can't think of any logical reason to lie about that. If the plane was shot down it would have been the right thing to do to prevent any other buildings and more people from being killed. That plane could have been headed for the whitehouse or the pentagon.

 

But like I said I don't know much of the details of that arguement, its not mentioned in Mr. Rupperts book and I have not looked into it much.

 

Or what about your president giving an interview saying he seen the first plane hit on the news...it wasnt on the news until the next day.When amatuer film was presented to the media.

 

I agree it is strange that he said that, but it doesn't mean anything by itself. It has been suggested that what he had seen was computer simulation of the war games that involved live fly exercises involving a mock situation of an aircraft being used as a missile. No one has been able to say whether computer simulation of the war games excercises exist, but I don't see why it wouldn't.

 

But I dunno, its a mystery.

[TimeTraveler]

Nooooooooo, you have not.

 

You have offered speculation and conjecture born out of the furtile imagination of someone who wanted to write a book for profit.

 

Well since you have already judged the book by its cover and will not read it, and will not consider it anything more than speculation and conjecture lets just end it here. We are obviously not going to agree. I have read the book, from cover to cover, some chapters twice, and my opinion he supports and backs up what he says pretty well. In your opinion he wants money, he's just speculating and it's not worth reading. So lets leave it at that.

[syntax252]

Well since you have already judged the book by its cover and will not read it, and will not consider it anything more than speculation and conjecture lets just end it here. We are obviously not going to agree. I have read the book, from cover to cover, some chapters twice, and my opinion he supports and backs up what he says pretty well. In your opinion he wants money, he's just speculating and it's not worth reading. So lets leave it at that.

 

Have you read the 9/11 report?

 

Did you read those UNSC resolutions and those UNSC reports that I linked you to?

 

If you had, you might understand why this Ruppert is nothing more than an opportunist who is feeding on one of the greatest tradgeties in our time....

[TimeTraveler]

Have you read the 9/11 report?

 

Most of it.

 

Did you read those UNSC resolutions and those UNSC reports that I linked you to?

 

Some. Not sure what those have to do with this.

 

If you had, you might understand why this Ruppert is nothing more than an opportunist who is feeding on one of the greatest tradgeties in our time....

 

I'm not going to bite. Just let it go, we have both stated our opinions, just agree that we disagree and move on.

[syntax252]

Most of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you have read it all, then you can compare it to Ruppert's book and judge which testimony you find the most convincing.

[TimeTraveler]

When you have read it all, then you can compare it to Ruppert's book and judge which testimony you find the most convincing.

 

Yep, have been. Whats interesting however is that much of whats in the book isn't investigated in the commission report. Such things as government money laundering, CIA training of terrorists, CIA drug trafficing complicity, business relations with Saudi's and Pakistani inteligence (ISI) and their connections with Al Qaeda, the loads and loads of warnings from foreign countries, PROMIS technology, insider trading and on and on.

 

But when you read Rupperts book you can compare the two and decide for yourself as well.

[syntax252]

Yep' date=' have been. Whats interesting however is that much of whats in the book isn't investigated in the commission report. Such things as government money laundering, CIA training of terrorists, CIA drug trafficing complicity, business relations with Saudi's and Pakistani inteligence (ISI) and their connections with Al Qaeda, the loads and loads of warnings from foreign countries, PROMIS technology, insider trading and on and on.

 

But when you read Rupperts book you can compare the two and decide for yourself as well.[/quote']

 

But those things are nothing but allegations.

 

You do know the difference between allegation and fact, do you not?

[TimeTraveler]

But those things are nothing but allegations.

 

You do know the difference between allegation and fact' date=' do you not? [/quote']

 

Allegations backed up with evidence, some hard evidence, some softer evidence. Doesn't matter, you say the 9/11 commission was to investigate government complicity. Well... they didn't do a very good job, they didn't investigate allegations, not many anyways. The same people who fought for 14 months to get a panel to investigate are the same people still fighting and furious that hardly any of their questions got answered. The core of those people are the family members of victims.

 

I do understand the difference between allegation and fact, but do you understand there is very little fact in this matter, even in the 9/11 commission report? The commission report is based upon evidence, conjecture and testimony, as is Ruppert's book. The difference is Ruppert has asked the questions and searched through the documents behind the allegations and came up with disturbing answers, whereas the panel didn't even confront these allegations, it wasn't their purpose.

[Sayonara]

You have offered speculation and conjecture born out of the furtile imagination of someone who wanted to write a book for profit.

Books tend to make a profit - it's the inevitable consequence of people buying them in a free market.

 

If you are going to disregard any evidence presented for the argument on those grounds, I hope your own counterpoints don't rely on books.