Whats the worst that could happen?

[syntax252]

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' date=' I hope your own counterpoints don't rely on books.[/quote']

 

No, that is not why I ruled out his argument.

 

His argument was ruled out because the 9/11 commission showed the premise of his book to be false.

 

I only pointed to the profit motive as an excuse for a lunatic to write a book that had no basis in fact and call it "investigation."

[syntax252]

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,

 

 

Subjective

 

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.

 

Tell it to the families of the people killed at Pearl Harbor. Should we investigate that?

 

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.

But as yet, you have not presented any evidence that the administration was complicit in the events of 9/11. All you have presented are your suspicions. You have even said that, when I pointed out that it is wrong to say that the President did these things and demanded an opology, you came back and said that you only "thought" that the president "might have been complicit."

 

So, if there is real evidence that the president orchastrated the events of 9/11, by all means present it. But suspicions won't do it, any more that the fact that someone can think of another question will do it. Present the facts, or fold your tent and go home.....

[syntax252]

Earlier I posted a question to Sayo as to whether or not he would be comportable with someone trying to float the idea that the Queen of England was making regular trips to Rome to perform felletio on the pope.

 

I posed the question to illustrate that there are things that are so very disgusting in nature that they are offensive to the whole of a people.

 

Someone removed that post. Sayo says that he didn't, and I believe him, but the fact remains that someone removed it and I think because it was offensive.

 

Now what I want to know is who is sensitive enough to find that idea offensive, you is insensitive enough that he doesn't think it is offensive to suggest that the President of the United States is a mass murderer.

 

Who?

[Hellbender]

Someone removed that post. Sayo says that he didn't, and I believe him, but the fact remains that someone removed it and I think because it was[/b'] offensive.

 

Maybe it was considered offensive becasue you were talking about oral sex in a tasteless way maybe? You don't need to be blatantly crude to prove a point.

[Phi for All]

Now what I want to know is who is sensitive enough to find that idea offensive' date=' you is [b']in[/b]sensitive enough that he doesn't think it is offensive to suggest that the President of the United States is a mass murderer.

 

Who?

It was my understanding that the Mod who deleted your tasteless, blatantly crude, deliberately offensive use of oral sex post actually PMd you about it. You seem so unhinged by this thread that you are unable to make distinctions with regard to propriety. Allegations against the US President in a political debate forum are allowed, lurid sexual references for shock value when our membership includes 12-year-olds are not.

 

You are branching into whole new areas of rule-breaking. Is there any hope that you will not force your own suspension?

[syntax252]

It was my understanding that the Mod who deleted your tasteless' date=' blatantly crude, deliberately offensive use of oral sex post actually PMd you about it. You seem so unhinged by this thread that you are unable to make distinctions with regard to propriety. Allegations against the US President in a political debate forum are allowed, lurid sexual references for shock value when our membership includes 12-year-olds are not.

 

You are branching into whole new areas of rule-breaking. Is there any hope that you will not force your own suspension?[/quote']

 

OK, so what we have here is a case of selective outrage...right?

 

On the one hand, I am told that one can float the theory that the president just "might" be guilty of complicity in the worst mass murder in the history of the country, and there is no reason for anyone to find offense in that, but if I suggest that perhaps the Queen of England had a sexual affair with the Pope, that is somehow off limits.

 

Look, all I am saying is that there ought to be some sort of standard applied to the sort of libelous allegation that can be floated on this, or indeed any other discussion forum.

 

If we have no such standards, please don't waste my time--and yours--with this phony bluster about how outraged you are.

[Phi for All]

On the one hand, I am told that one can float the theory that the president just "might" be guilty of complicity in the worst mass murder in the history of the country, and there is no reason for anyone to find offense in that, but if I suggest that perhaps the Queen of England had a sexual affair with the Pope, that is somehow off limits.

Tipping the scales again. How nice we have scaled down to "sexual affair" on one side while scaling back up to "mass murder" on the other.

[syntax252]

Maybe it was considered offensive becasue you were talking about oral sex in a tasteless way maybe? You don't need to be blatantly crude to prove a point.

 

That was the whole point.

 

I queried Sayo about whether or not he would be comfortable with such a post, since he had said that it mattered not what one posted, the name of the game was to refute the theory that was floated and to not be personally abusive in doing so.

 

It now appears that when the right ox is being gored, that indeed, a post can be offensive enough that it engenders an angry response, as witness phi for all's above post to me.

[syntax252]

Tipping the scales again. How nice we have scaled down to "sexual affair" on one side while scaling back up to "mass murder" on the other.

 

OK, call it whatever you want. The point is that it would be a salacious allegation that was not backed up by anything except "unanswered questions" just like the allegations about the President being complicit in the events of 9/11.

 

Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander?

[TimeTraveler]

You make claims that the book is just "unanswered questions" "speculations" and "allegations".

 

Yet you have not read the book.

 

You make claims like:

 

His argument was ruled out because the 9/11 commission showed the premise of his book to be false.

 

Anyone who has read the book, whether they come to the conclusion that he is wrong or right, understands how completely false this statement is.

 

But as yet, you have not presented any evidence that the administration was complicit in the events of 9/11.

 

I have already stated, read the book. The evidence is there, I can't post over 600 pages plus over 1000 footnotes on this site. I could sum it up to make the case which still would take weeks maybe months.

 

It's silly for you to say how baseless his arguement is when you have not even heard it.

 

 

I'm getting the impression your just enjoying the conflict and controversy of this whole discussion.

[Dave]

Unless something perks up in this thread pretty dramatically, it's probably going to be closed. We seem to be dredging up all of the stuff that's already been discussed here, and it's not really being productive in any way, shape or form. Indeed, it's going down rather a slippery slope atm

[syntax252]

You make claims that the book is just "unanswered questions" "speculations" and "allegations".

 

Yet you have not read the book.

 

You make claims like:

 

 

 

Anyone who has read the book' date=' whether they come to the conclusion that he is wrong or right, understands how completely false this statement is.

 

 

 

I have already stated, read the book. The evidence is there, I can't post over 600 pages plus over 1000 footnotes on this site. I could sum it up to make the case which still would take weeks maybe months.

 

It's silly for you to say how baseless his arguement is when you have not even heard it.

 

 

I'm getting the impression your just enjoying the conflict and controversy of this whole discussion.[/quote']

 

 

You claim to have read the book.

 

Show me the proof of his allegations.

[TimeTraveler]

You claim to have read the book.

 

Show me the proof of his allegations.

 

If you want to see the evidence to support his allegations you have to read the book. Or piece it together from his website, although it's much more organized in the book.

[syntax252]

If you want to see the evidence to support his allegations you have to read the book. Or piece it together from his website, although it's much more organized in the book.

 

In other words, you cannot provide any evidence that the administration was complicit in the 9/11 event--correct?

[Sayonara]

OK, so what we have here is a case of selective outrage...right?

No.

 

On the one hand, I am told that one can float the theory that the president just "might" be guilty of complicity in the worst mass murder in the history of the country,

"Worst mass murder", as opposed to the slaughter of tens of thousands of natives, which was a group effort?

 

Ignoring of course the fact that thousands of nameless and unimportant foreigners have been killed in the name of the president, whereas the Queen and the Pope's sexual relationship exists only in your head.

 

but if I suggest that perhaps the Queen of England had a sexual affair with the Pope, that is somehow off limits.

Actually, it was not removed because it was offensive. It was removed because the post was deliberately intended to exacerbate an argument that the staff had already intervened in with the intention of ending it. You have been warned several times about this issue, and clearly have not learned from your prior warnings/suspensions.

 

If we have no such standards, please don't waste my time--and yours--with this phony bluster about how outraged you are.

Nobody ever said they were outraged by your post. You are - once again - putting words in people's mouths.

 

I've had enough of your avatarial attitude. You are being suspended, and your status will be discussed at the next staff meeting. That will be in 2-4 weeks, because we sure as hell aren't reorganising this week's meeting for your benefit.

[TimeTraveler]

In other words, you cannot provide any evidence that the administration was complicit in the 9/11 event--correct?

 

Plenty. 600+ pages worth in Crossing the Rubicon.

 

Or much more softer evidence thats not even mentioned in Crossing the Rubicon.

 

#1) President Bush oppressed the making of a 9/11 commission for 14 months.

 

#2) President Bush nor Dick Cheney would not testify under oath before the 9/11 panel.

 

#3) Any and all very important and strong questions were met with "No comment" or "I can't answer that".

 

#4) Refusal to declassify the Aug 6th PDB titled "bin Laden determined to attack the U.S.".

 

#5) No mention of the nearly 100 foreign warnings of 9/11 in the 9/11 commission report.

 

#6) The whitehouse editing of Richard Clarkes book before it went to press.

 

#7) The evidence that shows that as many as 9 of the 19 hijackers are still alive.

 

I'm going to stop here but I could keep going. However weak you may think the above evidence is it is still evidence by definition. It could be used in a court of law. This type of stuff is not even mentioned in the book as it is irrelevant evidence, the evidence Mr. Ruppert provides is much stronger, from documents and letters from even within the CIA containing testimony. The book is filled with plenty of testimony, from witnesses inside different divisions of the government, including FEMA, FAA, NORAD, CIA, EIA, AF, and plenty of others. He did his interviews, and a hell of a job investigating. He dug deep, deeper than I have seen anyone dig, deeper than the 9/11 commission by far.

 

And like I said, it's convincing, not proof but enough for a legal trial by any accounts. If someone was murdered on the streets and this much evidence was compiled on suspects involved the Bush administration would be in court. But us civilians are not protected by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. But in this case if the suspects were not protected, warrants would be issued and documents would be confiscated. But thats not possible in our government because they are above the law, which is sad because this country was founded on the idea that civilians ran the country through their leaders, but it seems we gave that up along time ago.

[Pangloss]

First of all, most of these points are examples of argumentum ad ignorantiam, a common logical fallacy in which it is assumed that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof. You've already agreed with this when you say that it doesn't constitute proof, but you forget it again when you say that it constitutes evidence admissible in court.

 

What you're perhaps not realizing is that courts use the same test of evidence. No court would allow this case to proceed based *solely* on this kind of evidence, because none of it directly addresses the issue of complicity. Put another way, none of the circumstantial allegations, even were they proven to not be circumstantial, prove complicity.

 

This is demonstrated by the simple fact that each bit of "evidence" has an alternate explanation, which is equally viable in the legal sense. Note that I'm not saying that the alternate explanation is true, I'm saying that it's equally demonstrable.

 

Which reduces your argument to a matter of "where there's smoke, there's fire". Sure, you can read it out in a courtroom, and people can take it into consideration, but if that was all you had you'd never get to trial in the first place. For that matter, it violates basic principles of critical thinking.

 

Let's see what we have here....

 

 

#1) President Bush oppressed the making of a 9/11 commission for 14 months.

 

Alternate explanations range from partisan politics (fighting the dems) to embarassment (or fear of charges of criminal negligence) about not doing what he could to protect the country.

 

 

#2) President Bush nor Dick Cheney would not testify under oath before the 9/11 panel.

 

In fact they did. They testified on the record, which for the President and Vice-President is effectively the same thing, since they're already under oath not to lie. (And if you don't think that's strong enough, I have nine words for you: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")

 

 

#3) Any and all very important and strong questions were met with "No comment" or "I can't answer that".

 

Alternate explanations range from partisan politics to national security issues to embarassment about not doing what he could to protect the country.

 

 

#4) Refusal to declassify the Aug 6th PDB titled "bin Laden determined to attack the U.S.".

 

Irrelevent. The document was released by the National Security Advisor in sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission (on live television, as I recall).

 

 

#5) No mention of the nearly 100 foreign warnings of 9/11 in the 9/11 commission report.

 

Incorrect. See the 9/11 Commission report, pages 86, 117, 141, 274-5, and the entire section entitled "The System was Blinking Red" (especially the subsection titled "The Drumbeat Begins", on pages 255-6.

 

 

#6) The whitehouse editing of Richard Clarkes book before it went to press.

 

Interesting. What is Ruppert's cited source for this information?

 

I've read that they had a copy for months, but I've never heard that one.

 

 

#7) The evidence that shows that as many as 9 of the 19 hijackers are still alive.

 

What evidence would that be? Cite Ruppert's sources please.

 

 

On the whole, an entertaining discussion, but we're still way out in la-la land.

[budullewraagh]

pangloss, i generally respect your opinions, but this is one case where i think your posting is not quite necessary.

 

there are defenses stated above that are just nonsense. and im really sorry to say that. your "alternate explanations" don't really explain the true influences behind the decisions that were made. they dont even come close. the administration was afraid, admit it. they had been neglectful, admit it. they had completely stopped looking for terrorists. so of course they opposed having a 9/11 commission.

 

to say they would be "embarassed" is an understatement. had they testified the full truth and been held accountable for their actions, they would have been crucified.

 

and no, they didnt testify, for all intents and purposes. they bsed their way through the entire thing, holding one another's hand, pledging to not say a blasted thing. and the the commission was corrupt enough to let it go. did clinton bring madeline albright with him to testify? no. did he lie? yes, and he also admitted his wrongdoings later. bush and cheney refused to say anything remotely useful, did not say the truth (yes, they did know ____, ____ and ___) and got away with it because they made sure that the people running the commission would not challenge them.

 

oh, and "national security issues"? are you kidding me? that is such a generic modern republican excuse. "well, we can't tell you WHY we're doing this, because if we do, terrorists will burn your house down, rape your wife, enslave your children and kill you, but just remember that we know what's best for you and terrorists wont do all these things to you if you just listen to us and go along with everything we say." this is the sort of thing the republicans of the 1930s RAILED against.

 

now, anything that could be used against bush and cheney wasn't, and hasn't been. the commission knew bush was a negligent loser but they didn't do anything. had the majority of the united states known of his treason, the nation would be in a completely different situation now

[Pangloss]

The question we're discussing at the moment is not whether the administration screwed up, but whether they were in collusion with the terrorists. I'm not defending the administration, I'm simply pointing out what they might say.

 

I'd appreciate it if we could stick with that subject for the moment. I'm having a hard enough time getting TT to defend his assertions without folks accidentally muddying the waters. Thanks.

[budullewraagh]

but what they might say really has no veritable value, now does it?

[Pangloss]

Sure. I'm not defending the administration -- I believe they dropped the ball (as did the previous one).

 

But in terms of determining whether they were collusive with the terrorists none of Ruppert's "evidence" has "veritable value" either.

 

Do you feel otherwise, or do you agree with me on the subject we're actually discussing here? Please don't duck out of the conversation now that you've injected your subject-changing point about the ball being dropped. You now owe me an explanation of your position on the subject of collusion -- you can't ignore it just because you don't like the fact that it makes YOU look like you're defending Bush, and/or because it serves your anti-Bush agenda to let TT/Ruppert/et al run on like this.

 

Pay up.

[budullewraagh]

the previous one hardly did. they actually tried, and were successful. there would be no ball to drop, had the previous administration dropped it.

 

i haven't looked into the situation enough. i'll research later and make my decision

[Pangloss]

Ok, I'll take that to mean that you don't feel the "evidence" TT presented above is very compelling on the issue of complicity. Either that or you just jumped in without reading, and I can't imagine you ever doing something like that.

[TimeTraveler]

Pangloss, like I said what I posted above was not evidence even mentioned in Rupperts book, his evidence is not soft like the above evidence. It's just a couple quick obvious things I came up with off the top of my head.

 

Irrelevent. The document was released by the National Security Advisor in sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission (on live television, as I recall).

 

Irrelevant?

 

The document was not released on live television, the document has never been releasesd. 1 and a half of the 11 and a half pages were declassified. And that came after Condi Rices testimony.

 

What evidence would that be? Cite Ruppert's sources please.

 

It's all over, there has been several different reports about it even in the msm. From eye witness accounts of seeing them, to some of them being caught on tape, to friends recieving phone calls from them and so on. Do a search on google, I'm sure you will find alot of reports on it.

 

Like I said, this stuff has nothing to do with the arguement or the allegations, its just some evidence thats available to everyone that i came up with off the top of my head.

[Phi for All]

It's all over, there has been several different reports about it even in the msm. From eye witness accounts of seeing them, to some of them being caught on tape, to friends recieving phone calls from them and so on. Do a search on google, I'm sure you will find alot of reports on it.

No offense TT, but I'm seeing way too much of this on the forum these days (not just you and not just in politics). When someone makes a statement that you know you can refute, DO NOT make THEM look it up. Find the link yourself and post it since you are the one who wants to refute their statement. This is common courtesy that has the added benefits of making your argument really powerful and feeling really good ("Cite your evidence." "Here you go." * link * * link * * link * mwahaha!).