America's Destruction a Long Term Agenda

Umm...Are we looking at the same website? http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/

This website has, just on its front page, a link to a book called "Aliens and Fallen Angels." The caption with it reads "Discusses: The sexual assault. Giants walked the Earth. Other Hebrew clues. The clues of myths. Which angels fell? Before the beginning Satan’s fall/cosmic warfare. Preparing for invasion. Satan’s 6th column. We come in peace. Revelation."

Sounds like a tabloid to me.

Well aside from Rense and Newswatch Magazine...You've posted articles from World Net Daily which is just right-wing hate speech. Infowars.com is absolutely disgusting in its distortions of the truth. I'm sure there are others, but I don't feel like going through all your archive posts to find them.

Obviously you aren't, or you wouldn't routinely post articles that instantly get shot down as blatant lies.

Didn't you just say that you were able to decipher the truth from the disinformation? And now you're saying no one can. So which is it?

I'll take this incoherent babbling as meaning "I concede defeat, Kandahar."

"Allowed it to occur" doesn't have to mean that they knew about it ahead of time. Just plain incompetence falls into that category too.

It makes a big difference. Not all lies are created equal. You can believe that the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy, or you can believe that 5 million Jews were murdered rather than 6 million. Similarly, you can believe that the illuminati orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and covered them up perfectly, or you can believe that the Bush administration might be merely trying (and failing) to cover up its own incompetence for political purposes.

The fact that they believe "we're being lied to" doesn't mean that they accept your stupid ass theory. Of course we're being lied to, that's what politicians do for a living. It doesn't mean that every anti-establishment theory, no matter how bizarre and unfounded, is true.

I've read Ron Paul's complaints, yes. I haven't read McKinney's.

Oh really. Explain to me what is so radically different about today, versus the 1960s, that would cause the American people to take up armed rebellion against the government if we went to war with Iraq without an event that people perceived as a just cause.

As I said, that would have been a gamble at best. It'd be much more certain if they had just linked it to the Baathists in the first place.

That's funny, since I'm against the Patriot Act. And isn't the defining characteristic of neocons the desire to spread American hegemony throughout the world (and more specifically the Middle East)? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is. Maybe you should learn what political terms like neocon mean, before you throw them around and make an idiot of yourself.

A Global Hawk weighs about 20,000 pounds. A 757 airplane weighs about 250,000 pounds. It's a little hard to disguise the missing 230,000 pounds.

Again, how does this factor in to their agenda? How would it possibly benefit them for the American people to think that?

And YOU are accusing ME of not providing evidence? Riiight.

 

I certainly hope Kandahar has the answers to these questions, (of course he does, he knows everything!) or else I will disregard everything he says from now on since it will prove his theories are bogus...

No kidding, it's not coming out of their pockets, but the taxpayer's...

I recommend you consult the almighty Kandahar.

 

The difference is my questions to Rat were actually relevant, whereas his have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

In a way your conspiracy theory is inspiring, in that it can unite a left-wing luddite like you with a right-wing gumment-hater like Pressed Rat. Greenpeace meets the John Birch Society, so to speak. As long as you're united against someone that neither of you like (Bush in this case), who cares about the actual evidence of your theory, right?

 

The war is not the only event they needed to justify! Our rights are disappearing at an alarming rate, people most likely care more about that than they do about some pawns killing some foreign people across the ocean.

Plenty of evidence has been posted here by various people and you know it. Also, you don't have to be so lazy, look it up yourself, read a book or two like the rest of us.

 

Hardly. Unless he is in on the conspiracy, I don't think he was there...there is little chance of some of us ever finding out what specifically happened (certain details will likely never be confirmed) regarding 9/11, but that does not mean the gov. was not behind it! That does not disprove the theory that more and more people are supporting. Duh.

Shut up with the labels. I'm united with no one. The only environmental org I've contributed to is The Nature Conservancy. I'm not left-wing and I hate the gov.

Actual evidence is all I care about.

(I believe you also dislike Bush, I guess we're all united...)

 

OK...Are they going to take up armed rebellion against the government as a result of the war in Iraq combined with the Patriot Act? No. You know perfectly well how apathetic most Americans are.

You guys seem to suffer from an inability to properly weigh evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that points to the mainstream theory, whereas you guys offer trivial bits of evidence like testimony from eyewitnesses taken weeks after the fact, or the claims that "firefighters smelled camphor" or "an engine on the Pentagon lawn wasn't from a 757."

While I suppose it is possible that perhaps one or two articles of evidence for the mainstream theory are erroneous in some way (such as being faked or misinterpreted), it is absolutely NOT possible that ALL of the evidence pointing to the mainstream theory is faked.

 

My "Why did the government do X" questions are not intended to make Rat explain exactly what happened. But since he can't even come up with a base motive for the government's actions on a large number of 9/11-related topics, I conclude that his theory is mistaken. Governments don't just carry out actions that require a lot of planning on a random whim, for no reason whatsoever. You guys should be able to at least make reasonable speculations on the motive for all aspects of this conspiracy, rather than just blathering "I don't know, I'm not the government!" You ought to be able to put yourself in the position of whoever you think orchestrated this conspiracy, and speculate on their motives.

Yes, but I'm not about to start calling him a conspirator or psychopath without ironclad evidence, which in the case of 9/11, simply does not exist.

 

" conclude that his theory is mistaken. Governments don't just carry out actions that require a lot of planning on a random whim"

This wasn't on a whim Kandahar, The government had been planning an attack on the WTC for years and years using planes, and even did an exerciese in the 1970's of that scenario occuring. http://www.rense.com/general63/TWIN.HTM (I know you hate rense, but just read the article please, it's completely legitamate).

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

If that is the case, then they must've had some motives behind various aspects of the attacks, which beg questions that have so far only been answered by Rat with "I don't know, I'm not the government."

 

This article is based off of the testimony of a single witness...and almost thirty years after this supposedly happened. Let's employ Occam's Razor here. I have a couple alternative hypotheses about the article, both of which are more likely than a massive government conspiracy:

1. Mr McNiven is simply mistaken about his exercise in 1976. After all, he is trying to remember this almost thirty years after the fact. And if he remembers it so vividly, it must've had some importance even at the time, which means the other members of his unit would have remembered and come forward also.

2. Mr McNiven made the whole thing up, or made up parts of it, perhaps motivated by fame or money.

 

did alex jones tell you this was right too, rat?

 

Hopefully this will put to rest Rat's claims that something other than a 757 damaged the Pentagon on 9/11. Watch the video from a Pentagon security camera.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

And Snopes has answered all of your questions regarding the Pentagon attack far better than I can:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

You're trying to offer this as evidence? That video is go grainy that I couldn't even SEE the plane.

 

I don't know, maybe. I don't rule it out and neither should the government. I'm not just talking about the Patriot Act either, that is just one of many things (and many more to come unless we do something about it).

I disagree. And this is proof to me that you've done no serious inquiry into the matter.

 

The motives are perfectly clear and simply common sense.

Who knows if that tard even was involved, he's merely a place holder and I don't give a damn about him.
I will not absolve the gov. from the crime of 9/11 until ironclad evidence is provided.

I really do think you are a troll, you seem to be here only to suck up everyone's time, I don't think I'll respond to you any longer, I have better things to do. We just go in circles anyways.

 

Some people are just not worth arguing with. Do we really care what Kandahar thinks? I know I don't. Shit on the bottom of a shoe means more to me than what Kandahar thinks.

FYI -- I have seen the Pentagon security footage many times. I don't see any plane. I see an orangish-red fireball.

Everyone knows the Pentagon is one of the most guarded buildings in the entire country, and is surrounded with security cameras. Are we supposed to believe this is the best they can do?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

"2. Mr McNiven made the whole thing up, or made up parts of it, perhaps motivated by fame or money."

Perhaps motivated by fame and money?? I havn't even seen this article talked about on any mainstream news network, and i don't think you get a hell of a lot from posting your articles on rense.com

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

I'm not saying that he definitely lied for personal reasons. Just offering that as another possible explanation. It's certainly more probable than a massive government conspiracy.

How come you didn't address the possibility that he was simply mistaken? That seems to be most likely of all.

 

Yeah, but to me most of your articles seem like a lot of the facts are mistaken, it's just a matter of opinion i suppose. To me, this article seems to have a lot of accountability.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

I have a difficult time putting very much faith in the testimony of ANY single witness, regardless of what his cause is...especially one who is trying to remember things from 30 years ago. Memories can be drastically changed or corrupted over the course of 30 years. And his story doesn't add up; if he recalled this event from 1976 so vividly, some of his army buddies would probably have come forward to back it up.