9-11 question

Unlike you, I don't accept anything as "trustworthy," unless there is evidence to support it -- unlike 9/11, where there is almost no evidence to support the "official" government fairy tale.

You consider the mainstream media "trustworthy," even though it is controlled by nothing more than the rich and powerful elitists of the military-industrial complex, who have their own agenda. Of course you will never admit such a thing, because not coming off as being a conspiracy theorist is more important to you than truth. People like you would rather believe that the media isn't controlled, and that the only way to view the world is through rose-colored glasses.

I suppose you believe George Bush is "trustworthy," too?

 

Of course they're just puppets of the NWO elitists; that's why neither made any attempt to capture bin Laden. They both know what an asset he is to furthering the globalist agenda, and that's why he has not been caught to this date. If bin Laden is caught -- if he isn't already dead, which I believe he very well could be -- it won't be until after a "dirty bomb" goes off in a major US city (or cities).

Because, I am smart. Through knowledge and a proficient grasp on history, I can differentiate what is fact from what is fiction. Besides, if you knew anything about the mainstream media, you would know that they incessantly focus on the most irrelevent and mundane stories, which they use to divert people's attention from the REAL stories they're unwilling to cover. That's probably why the media is still talking about the Cesna incident over DC, almost two days after this bogus, overblown incident occured.

This story from '93 received about one day's worth of coverage, then was conveniently swept under the rug. I wonder why?

Yeah, it's always about "incompetence," isn't it?

Bahhh...Bahhh. Bahhh little sheep.

Don't worry about anything. Bush and his handlers love you. Bush and his good little handlers will rock the little baby boy to sleep. Sleep now, little Kandie.

 

So you tell us this right after providing a link to the New York Times? With such ridiculous double standards, its no wonder you hold yourself in such high regard.

Yeah all that and a few fabricated quotes goes a long way, doesn't it?

Here's a few things you have a proficient grasp of:

*George Bush is a communist
*The Republican party is controlled by homosexuals
*The entire planet is controlled by the illuminati
*The illuminati have build a secret underground world where they can hide out
*Extra terrestrials visit the earth on a regular basis
*You don't know if there is an ET/Illuminati cross breeding program in the underground world, but you "wouldn't be surprised"
*Ghosts are real
*You are a free, independent thinker who conducts careful research - but you prefer to express your views by cutting and pasting entire articles from conspiracy websites
*You refer to specific allegations as "definitely legitimate" but when asked how/why you concluded this, you can't come up with anything at all, probably because you are too busy complimenting your own intelligence and "thorough research"

Another example of you intelligence would be saying that it is "common knowledge" that Atta's passport was found on the sidewalk. Well, a quick google search shows that it is common knowledge among the hundreds of conspiracy theorists repeating it in the echo chambers they call websites. Yet you lovingly absolve them of any blame for getting their facts wrong, because "the story" kept changing (no evidence provided).

 

Rat, you're a moron sometimes. You act like this whole thing is top down, all our problems are because of this Shadow Government. Maybe the people themselves are part of the cause, that maybe they want censorship of some things, or they want more government to protect them. Sure, you'd say they've been manipulated into thinking that, but you know, people aren't as stupid as you think. Even uninformed people. They have their own wants and desires and that is what guides them. Not the illuminati. We "sheep" still have minds of our own and make our own choices, believe it or not.

Some of what you say makes sense, but some of it is incredibly ridiculous.

And hey...what if YOU'RE being manipulated too. Who's to say the Illuminati don't own your alternative news sites? According to you, they own or control just about everything else.

 

There is a difference between believing everything you read in the New York Times (like you probably do) and believing what you read based on pre-existing knowledge. I read several mainstream newspapers, including the New York Times, everyday. It doesn't mean I believe everything I read in there as being absolute truth. Most of these publications mix fact with disinfo. If you have a brain, you can determine what is real and what is BS. Unfortunately, all news ultimately comes from mainstream sources, that's just the way it works.

Also, you have media spin. When you learn to see through the veneer the media creates, you learn how to spot bombshells hidden beneath the spin. For instance, that NYT article spins the story to make it appear as if it was all just a mistake and not intentional.

But, again, you twist the argument so you don't have to answer questions. So now, instead of discussing that NYT article, you turn it into a debate over something totally unrelated to what's being discussed. This is a tactic practiced by many in these forums.

I really don't know what Bush is. All I know is that Bush is not a conservative. He has destroyed the American economy while he wages pre-emptive, imperial wars overseas, all the while turning the homeland into a police state. Bush reminds me more of a Soviet leader than an American president.

As far as your other accusations, I am not going to go there because half of the stuff I've never said, and even if I did, it has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed IN THIS THREAD! You are using it as a tool to discredit me, because you know I pose a threat to your NEOCON ideologies! Admit it! Admit that is the reason why you insist on trolling every single one of my threads!

 

What you are saying is that any source which supports your views is legitimate, and any source which doesn't support your views in not legitimate. Thus you can quote the NY Times and then call me a sheeple if I quote the NY Times. Its the most ridiculously self serving logic conceivable.

Really, what questions haven't I aswered? Because actually, you're the one who rarely, for obvious reasons, answers questions. Either you say "I didn't write it" or "you're sheeple for not believing it" or just say its "definitely legitimate" and then refuse to explain why. You seem to resent the idea that anyone would ask the questions about things you swallow without question.

For example, will you explain why you fabricated a quote to make it look like Atta's passport was found on a NY sidewalk? No, you won't. Why bother? On to the next conspiracy.

The American economy has not been destroyed. Get a grip.

You're not a threat to anything except bandwidth. How exactly are you a threat when you don't do anything except sit around and complain. You don't have any ideology at all, and you mostly encourage other people to be passive like you, which only helps the status quo.

More likely you're threatened by me. Maybe you wish there was nobody here to question your theories. Maybe you wish everyone sat around anxiously awaiting the next cut and paste story from your conspiracy theory websites.

 

Translation: "I'll believe the New York Times when their articles agree with what I already think. But at all other times, I'm right and they're wrong."

So why did you bother to cite the New York Times at all, if you consider them an unreliable source? I certainly wouldn't cite Rense if I found an article there that I happened to agree with. Agreeing with the basic premise of the story and actually having the article be true are two entirely separate things, as anyone with even the most basic grasp of logic understands.

Furthermore, did the article you read from New York Times help convince you of the truth of the government conspiracy to blow up the WTC in 1993? If you already believed that, then this article had no effect on you and you had no reason for posting it. If you didn't already believe that, then you believed an article from the normally-unreliable New York Times without doing any "research," which means you accept them as a reliable source.

 

Again, this is petty bickering that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. It is apparent that Kandahar and Pointbreak are using a phony argument as a substitute for discussion over the content of the NYT article, and its point towards government complicity in the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

And what is a "reliable source," really? I don't think there are any sources that are totally reliable. To think so is rather gullible. I go based more on the actual stories themselves than I do the sources, though you probably won't often catch me reading neocon propaganda, like The Weekly Standard, or neolib propaganda, like The Nation. But I don’t automatically agree or disagree with something until I read the article and form an opinion based on what I already know. This goes for any source; mainstream and otherwise.

My beef with the mainstream media isn’t that nothing they publish can be believed, but the way they apply a lot of spin to the stories they present, which is used to dupe the often uneducated and uninformed public. Even if 75% of what the mainstream media presents is completely accurate and trustworthy, it’s the 25 percent that really tarnishes it all. It’s kind of like rat poison, where 98% of it is grain, and the other 2% is poison. But it’s that 2% that kills.

Also, the media is known for NOT covering things. That’s why we almost never hear about depleted uranium or the Project for the New American Century mentioned on the mainstream media.

Hell, half the time I turn of FOX News, they’re not covering actual “news.” It seems like more than half the time they’re talking about the runaway bride, Michael Jackson, or the American Idol sex scandal. Stuff like this is reported in detail, not only because it’s what the dumbed-down public wants, but because it provides good filler for not having to cover the real news. . . to not talk about the national ID, or not talk about the borders being wide open, or not talk about the massive trade deficit. The elite-controlled mainstream media does more to keep people in the dark than it does to inform them.

This is why I not only use mainstream sources, so I can stay updated with what’s going on in the world –- or rather so I can at least have a sense of what is going on -- but alternative sources as well. There are so many great investigative journalists out there, like Tom Flocco and Jon Rappoport, who cover a side to the news that you’re not going to hear on CNN or FOX News.

As far as the thing about Atta being fabricated, I will now present you a mainstream source which backs what I said. Is the UK’s Guardian a “conspiracy website”, you neocon?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html

Looks like I proved you wrong again. Don’t cry. I know you probably weren't planning on me wasting my time and effort to disprove your sorry, warmongering, head-in-the-sand ass!

 

So you mean its kind of like Bigfoot stories on Rense? Or is that, once again, "different"?

And your link is to an editorial, genius. Do you know the difference between editorial and reporting? Apparently not, yet you want to lecture us on the media. What a joke.

So........... why did you fabricate the quote? Is this something you do on a regular basis?

 

Well, if you actually looked into that you're criticising, you would know that the Bigfoot story was also covered by the mainstream media.

You criticised me for this before and I even produced an article regarding this, taken from the Toronto Globe & Mail. Are they conspiracy theorists? It's only the biggest newspaper in all of Canada.

As far as Rense.com -- unlike the mainstream media -- you're not told what to think. As I have said before, Rense offers articles from both mainstream and alternative media sources. It's basically pure, unadulterated information from various sources of varying credibility. Nobody ever said you're supposed to believe everything you read on Rense.com, just like you're not supposed to believe everything you read on Front Page or Free Republic.

Hell, even Jeff Rense has said he doesn't agree with half of what is posted on his site. But it's not about that. It's about information, and information you're not necessarily going to hear on your local 6 o'clock news. (Though some of it is.)

So? It's still from a mainstream source. According to you, the only people who were going along with the Atta story are what you term "conspiracy theorists."

You would think someone writing for The Guardian would know what they are talking about.

But I am sure I can provide more links if that isn't sufficient enough for you.

How did I fabricate the quote? All I did was add Atta's name in caption, since it was his passport that was supposedly found on the New York City sidewalk following the plane slamming into the building.

 

The Bush family was friends with the Bin Ladens.

 

No kidding, the point is you always want to have it both ways. You want to claim mainstream media is legitimate when you quote it, but not if anyone else does. You want to criticise mainstream media for fluff content, but bigfoot stories on Rense don't bother you. Always a double standard.

Its called plausible deniability, don't be so gullible. That's how Rense can continuously post articles sympathising with holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, yet both you and Rense can pretend they just "happen" to appear on the site and it doesn't mean anything.

Editorial is editorial, its not reporting.

Weasel words. What was a quote, with no source named and no link provided, with the word Atta inserted supposed to mean? What was the value of the mystery quote when the only piece of relevant information was simply added by you to make it say what you wanted? Do you do this often?

 

As for mainstream media being a legitimate source of info,this is how i usually judge whether a mainstream report is legit or not....usually the small stories on the back pages in the little side columns that get swept away after one issue are the real stories that actually mean something, and the ones on the front page that the mainstream media shoves in your face 24/7 are usually the fake, fabricated and/or exaterated stories to A.Distract you B. keep you dumbed down (Being that these stories usually consist of celebrities on trial or murders).

Peace and Love,
Dan