ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Dancing Israelis , mossad , mossad conspiracies

Reply
Old 29th May 2019, 02:09 AM   #81
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,981
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
LOL. Because it is a thread about new information about the "Dancing Israelis" whose activities were already well documented, names known and TV appearance included. As you well know and everybody can find out by following the link in the OP. Why did you think this additional derail attempt was worth trying, Allen773? Now the attention is back to where you obviously don't want it to be.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
In addition, as the links in your OP do not substantiate the claims contained within it, please provide evidence for their membership of Mossad, and any foreknowledge Mossad may have had of the 9/11 attacks.
If you can give any reason why Mossad would be involved in the attacks beyond The Evil JewsTM, that would be a bonus.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 08:15 AM   #82
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,031
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
There were signs in the various American Airlines employee break rooms, and internal offices warning of termination for racial profiling at the check-in gates, and by air crews.

The Customs Agent who refused Mohamed al Kahtani entrance into the US based on his lack of English skills, hostility to being questioned and LACK OF RETURN AIRLINE TICKET was warned by others in his office there would be repercussions for refusing entrance to a Saudi national (which is why they were perfect for Al Qaeda's attack plan).

Grown ups can read about al Kahtani's adventure on page 29 & 30 here:

https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/...rrTrav_Ch2.pdf

This covers the whole Al Qaeda hijacker visa history. On Page 8 they remind the reader that after the indictment of bin Laden, INS headquarters sent out an advisory to be on the lookout for Al Qaeda operatives attempting to enter the US...in November 1998...

The real world looked nothing like PaloAlto's fantasy land.

Right, and one key reason for why it was so easy for Saudis to get US visas (besides the notorious “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the US) was the fact that Saudis tended not to stay long-term in the US - mostly, they came as students or tourists (I believe this is still the case today). In contrast, visa applicants from certain other countries - for instance, Yemen, a much poorer and less politically stable country than Saudi Arabia - were usually suspected of being potential immigrants. Hence, it was much harder for Yemenis to obtain US visas, as certain al-Qaeda operatives - and would-be 9/11 hijackers - found out.

Of the four non-Saudi 9/11 hijackers, two of them came from the United Arab Emirates (read: wealthy, stable Gulf monarchy, US ally, etc.), one from a wealthy secular Lebanese Sunni Muslim family, and the other - Mohammed Atta - from Egypt. And three of these four had lived unmolested for several years in Germany (the infamous “Hamburg cell”), and were better-educated and spoke much better English than the other, mostly Saudi hijackers. Not hard to see why they were attractive recruits for an operation that required them to live in the US for more than a year, get pilot training, etc. before carrying out their final, fatal mission.

Which reminds me: Most of those Saudi hijackers? They entered the US a few months before 9/11. Not exactly the time needed for immigrants! Furthermore, there were as many as a dozen other al Qaeda trainees who were recruited as “muscle” for the “planes operation” but failed to get US visas - they’re mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report’s endnotes.

By the spring and early summer of 2001, the masterminds back in Afghanistan were literally just trying to get as many operatives as they could into the US, but almost half of them were stopped in Dubai or Jeddah. Playing the odds. And considering how small al-Qaeda “central” actually was even then, you can appreciate how important the “planes operation” was to bin Laden, Zawahiri, and KSM - who all overruled the opposition by most of al-Qaeda’s senior leadership to the massive attacks on the US homeland.

Finally, we mustn’t forget that Osama bin Laden knew exactly what he was doing when he selected mostly Saudi nationals for the “planes operation” against the American homeland.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 11:34 AM   #83
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
Throw in the fact that had the CIA passed along the information about the two known AQ operatives, and the FBI made the arrest - in pre-9/11 days they would have lawyered up, and not said a word about why they were in the country. In the mean time AQ would have sent replacements, and the operation would continue.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 07:24 PM   #84
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
paloalto, since you seem so interested in this subject, two questions for you.

1. Prior to 9/11/2001, was al-Qaeda seen by most US policymakers and senior officials as a threat primarily for law enforcement (FBI, DOJ) to deal with? This is a simple "yes or no" question.

2. What powers of law enforcement does the CIA have?

Thank you.
Stopping al Qaeda terrorist attacks inside of the US was seen as a threat primarily for law enforcement (FBI, DOJ) to deal with. Had they done their job, instead of secretly taking orders from the CIA to block information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from going to the FBI, and then shutting down Steve Bongardt's criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, when he wanted to find these terrorists before they had time to take part in an al Qaeda terrorist attack, these attacks could have been prevented.

What powers of law enforcement does the CIA have?

While they murder people out side of the US, their primary role is intelligence outside of the US. The CIA operation to spy of the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York City FBI field office in June 2001, was in fact illegal, since it was against the law for the CIA to have any operations inside of the US. They did not have to have powers of law enforcement, just pass the information they had, in fact the information that Tom Wilshere had in fact, requested to be passed to the FBI on July 13, and July 23, 2001, they could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

And beyond belief, the CIA even knew by not rescinding their secret orders, to Wilshere to prevent him from passing the information from Kuala Lumpur, to the FBI, that thousands on people in the US would be murdered in the terrorist attacks that the CIA knew were just about to take place inside of the US. The CIA deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorist to murder thousands of people in the US and they got away with this absolute treachery and treason against the American people, because of a wide spread cover up by the official US government investigations of 9/11. The CIA, in fact no one, including the "debunkers" on this forum, have ever explained in any way, why the CIA refused to pass the information to the FBI, that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, when the CIA clearly knew by withholding this information, thousands of Americans would be murdered.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 07:36 PM   #85
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Really, now Douglas Feith, Ahmed Chalabi, and "Curveball" are CIA people? That's an insult to the Agency even by your standards...
Nobody thought that Douglas Feith, and Ahmed Chalabi, had any credibility at all. And if anyone thought that "Curveball" had any credibility, they would have named him "Straight Arrow", and certainly not Curve ball. Does that explain this?
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 07:54 PM   #86
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
"Any suspicion" is worthless non-information. "Any suspicion" is looking at a man with a darker shade of skin than average at the airport and concluding that he should be put on a watchlist.

Forgive me for being blunt, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
But I do know what I am talking about, it is you that clearly doesn't know what you are talking about. Everyone knew that with respect to the al Qaeda terrorists, that because it was well known that their most important weapon, was secrecy, that any bit of information that the CIA got on al Qaeda, regardless of how small would be very important. You have posted a ridiculous straw man to try to prove your point, which it clearly fails to do!

And prior to 9/11, if any airline had done what you suggested, it would have resulted in an automatic 1.5 million dollar fine, courtesy of Norman Mineta.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 07:59 PM   #87
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I hate to tell you but, the only way you could justify this statement is with hindsight. Can you show there was never any actual suspicion among the decision makers at that time? I'll wait.
Can you show there was? And, you know very well know that it is impossible to prove a negative. Nice try, buy I refuse to fall for this trick!
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 08:42 PM   #88
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
That would be news to UNSCOM.

That was news to the Iraqi Army in 2003 when they were told, two weeks into the invasion, that they didn't actually have chemical weapons. The USMC captured enough brand new Chines made chemical warfare suits to outfit a division.

And I guess you believe the Iraqi Army had bought into a CIA lie (which would be all kinds of awesome). The fact is Saddam needed everyone to believe he still had them in order to maintain the threat over those who would try to overthrow him (Iranian-bakced Shiites).

You're not helping your credibility.
"And I guess you believe the Iraqi Army had bought into a CIA lie." No they were "ordered" to buy into Saddem's lie under penalty of death, but what they believed or did not believe is irrelevant.

No one with any brains, bought into this totally ridiculous CIA lie, it was so obvious it was pathetic. Nobody was that stupid to believe the CIA. Every one knew that the CIA was carrying water for "W". The CIA lies were so completely ridiculous, that they would have been funny if they had not resulted in the senseless deaths of almost 5000 Americans. Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague prior to 9/11. Everyone knew that Saddem hated al Qaeda and would have never have allowed his intelligence agents to meet with an al Qaeda terrorist. This is just so stupid, that it completely defies belief that anyone would believe this lie. A small truck, used to by Colin Powel, in a speech at the UN, to prove that Saddem had weapons of mass destruction, even more ridiculous. Since everyone knew that "W" wanted to go to war against Iraq, they also knew he would make up, or command the CIA, to make up all kinds of BS to make the case that going to war was necessary. And sure enough, he did!
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 09:27 PM   #89
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
There were signs in the various American Airlines employee break rooms, and internal offices warning of termination for racial profiling at the check-in gates, and by air crews.

The Customs Agent who refused Mohamed al Kahtani entrance into the US based on his lack of English skills, hostility to being questioned and LACK OF RETURN AIRLINE TICKET was warned by others in his office there would be repercussions for refusing entrance to a Saudi national (which is why they were perfect for Al Qaeda's attack plan).

Grown ups can read about al Kahtani's adventure on page 29 & 30 here:

https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/...rrTrav_Ch2.pdf

This covers the whole Al Qaeda hijacker visa history. On Page 8 they remind the reader that after the indictment of bin Laden, INS headquarters sent out an advisory to be on the lookout for Al Qaeda operatives attempting to enter the US...in November 1998...

The real world looked nothing like PaloAlto's fantasy land.
"The real world looked nothing like PaloAlto's fantasy land."

The real world that you claim is PaloAlto's fantasy land comes right out of carefully aggregating the many official investigations on 9/11, which had many had many inaccuracies, so it was necessary to aggregate these reports using only the most accurate parts of these reports, which could be corroborated with other sources. This information plus the the defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trial, plus literature that had information that was not available in the government reports, that I was could to corroborate, from other sources, including the account of Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward, the article, "Meet the new Baghdad station chief" by Ken Silverstein. It took several years to put the complete account of 9/11 back together again.

Since it is clear, that you have never done any of this research, it is you that is not living in the real world but in a fantasy land of your own making. It is you who believed the lies that came out of some of the investigations on 9/11, and while there were lies of commission, most of the lies were lies of omission, which were much more serious since at first it was not obvious what was missing and what was missing could only be determined after I put the whole story back together again.

This is something, it is clear that you have never done, and I bet you never will. This is the reason that you are still so completely uniformed about the events prior to the attacks on 9/11. This is the reason you are still living in your own fantasy land and not the real world.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 09:31 PM   #90
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Can somebody please explain what paloalto's beef actually is.
Yes, the deliberate actions at the CIA, which allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people in the US, that is my beef.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 10:29 PM   #91
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
"And I guess you believe the Iraqi Army had bought into a CIA lie." No they were "ordered" to buy into Saddem's lie under penalty of death, but what they believed or did not believe is irrelevant.

No one with any brains, bought into this totally ridiculous CIA lie, it was so obvious it was pathetic. Nobody was that stupid to believe the CIA. Every one knew that the CIA was carrying water for "W". The CIA lies were so completely ridiculous, that they would have been funny if they had not resulted in the senseless deaths of almost 5000 Americans. Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague prior to 9/11. Everyone knew that Saddem hated al Qaeda and would have never have allowed his intelligence agents to meet with an al Qaeda terrorist. This is just so stupid, that it completely defies belief that anyone would believe this lie. A small truck, used to by Colin Powel, in a speech at the UN, to prove that Saddem had weapons of mass destruction, even more ridiculous. Since everyone knew that "W" wanted to go to war against Iraq, they also knew he would make up, or command the CIA, to make up all kinds of BS to make the case that going to war was necessary. And sure enough, he did!
Again, no mention of UCSCOM, and why UNSCOM was formed after Desert Storm, and no explanation as to why the Iraqi Army had new Chemical Warfare suits in 2003.

Nope, it was all CIA, even though the CIA was split on how accurate their assessment was on Iraq's WMD's.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 10:44 PM   #92
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,765
"CIA = Caused It All."

Truthers will usually work backward from that acronym, though most won't consistently post unsubstantiated walls of text in support of it.

Kudos paloalto.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 10:49 PM   #93
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,473
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Yes, the deliberate actions at the CIA, which allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people in the US, that is my beef.
Were the actions of the CIA deliberate?

Well, they could have been. They could have deliberately acted to take certain steps, or to not take certain steps, not realising what the consequences would be.

However, do I believe that the CIA knew in advance, the exact details of the 9/11 attacks, who was going to carry out the plan, what the targets were, and how they were going execute the attacks, and then deliberately withheld vital information in order to allow them to happen? NO I DO NOT, and furthermore, I have seen no evidence that would exclusively support only that scenario. All the evidence you to have provided so far can be construed as negligence or stupidity - I believe in Hanlon's Razor, which loosely translates to 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity'

Intelligence agencies make mistakes all the time. IMO, one the biggest mistakes made by the CIA (in fact, by the entire intelligence community) was thinking it was a good idea to replace many of their human surveillance resources (spies) with satellites and electronic listening posts for intelligence gathering. This was a deliberate act, one that they had been systematically carrying out since the early 1990s, and one that lead to a situation in advance of 9/11 where, thanks to their observation of increased "chatter", they realized something was happening, but they did not know exactly what. The intelligence community knew that Osama Bin Laden was a threat… they knew Al Qaeda was a threat, and had even warned the White House of an attack on the homeland in August 2001, but they were unable to act on this intelligence because they didn’t know the intended target of the attack, or how it would be carried out. This is where actual human spies on the ground are much more valuable than simply listening to what the terrorists are saying to each other. Its even worse now than it was 20 years ago, because back then, high level encryption wasn't readily available to the public. It is now, which is why we have seen a move back to towards human "assets" in intelligence gathering.

Incidentally, that last part is one of the reasons why Trump's actions in allowing AG Barr to declassify top level CIA documents is so dangerous and reckless. The names of assets in Russia, the Ukraine, the Balkans and the Middle East WILL be compromised by these actions. Worse yet, it is very possible that those documents could contain the names of assets belonging to allies of the United States. Declassifying those documents will get either get some if these assets killed, or it will force them to get to a safe place. It takes many years to cultivate human assets in strategic places; Trump could undo all that in a heartbeat, and set Western allied intelligences agencies back many years.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 30th May 2019 at 12:05 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 10:54 PM   #94
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
"The real world looked nothing like PaloAlto's fantasy land."

The real world that you claim is PaloAlto's fantasy land comes right out of carefully aggregating the many official investigations on 9/11, which had many had many inaccuracies, so it was necessary to aggregate these reports using only the most accurate parts of these reports, which could be corroborated with other sources.
Translation: You've twisted the facts to justify your warped anti-CIA beliefs. The facts are somewhat different than your interpretation.


Quote:
This information plus the the defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trial, plus literature that had information that was not available in the government reports, that I was could to corroborate, from other sources, including the account of Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward, the article, "Meet the new Baghdad station chief" by Ken Silverstein. It took several years to put the complete account of 9/11 back together again.
Again, this is all public knowledge, as it taking Bob Woodward with a grain of salt.

Quote:
Since it is clear, that you have never done any of this research, it is you that is not living in the real world but in a fantasy land of your own making.
And yet everyone seems to agree with me, and not you. Why is that?


Quote:
It is you who believed the lies that came out of some of the investigations on 9/11, and while there were lies of commission, most of the lies were lies of omission, which were much more serious since at first it was not obvious what was missing and what was missing could only be determined after I put the whole story back together again.
Me,me,me,me. The fact is that by September 17, 2001, the many failures of the CIA and FBI were known to the American people. The Time Magazine special issue covered them in remarkable depth. The 9-11 Commission hearing were largely academic.

You have revealed no secrets. In fact you're late to the game.

Quote:
This is something, it is clear that you have never done, and I bet you never will. This is the reason that you are still so completely uniformed about the events prior to the attacks on 9/11. This is the reason you are still living in your own fantasy land and not the real world
Hardly. You have this mythological view of how the CIA and FBI worked. In all of your spam posting you have never demonstrated a functional knowledge of either agency. Your work is full of pejorative, long warn-out tropes of CIA evilness, and blanket assumptions devoid of the nuances of the real CIA. You ignore the Clinton Administration completely, and if there was a CIA cover-up involving an attempt to infiltrate Al Qaeda's CONUS operation it would have begun there, and Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of Clinton NSC materials from the National Archives would be a smoking gun in any other CT.

You ignore the social issue of the mid-1990's over racial profiling, and how it had begun to hamstring law enforcement (including the FBI).

You ignore Alec Station and its separation from Langley by design of it's creator, Michael Scheuer (you'd like him, he's an ego maniac too).

And you ignore the limits of law enforcement under the US Constitution. Had the FBI knocked on Mohamed Atta's door in June, 2001 all he had to say was he wanted to learn to fly commercial jet liners, and that's where it would have ended. Same with any of the other 19 hijackers. Even if we could have waterboarded Zacarias Moussaoui in August, 2001, we would have learned he wasn't part of what became the 9-11 attacks.

http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anni...ieth-hijacker/

You demonstrate magical thinking when it comes to both the CIA and FBI, and your "research" suffered as a result.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 29th May 2019 at 10:56 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:46 AM   #95
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,788
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
"The real world looked nothing like PaloAlto's fantasy land."

The real world that you claim is PaloAlto's fantasy land comes right out of carefully aggregating the many official investigations on 9/11, which had many had many inaccuracies, so it was necessary to aggregate these reports using only the most accurate parts of these reports, which could be corroborated with other sources. This information plus the the defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trial, plus literature that had information that was not available in the government reports, that I was could to corroborate, from other sources, including the account of Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward, the article, "Meet the new Baghdad station chief" by Ken Silverstein. It took several years to put the complete account of 9/11 back together again.

Since it is clear, that you have never done any of this research, it is you that is not living in the real world but in a fantasy land of your own making. It is you who believed the lies that came out of some of the investigations on 9/11, and while there were lies of commission, most of the lies were lies of omission, which were much more serious since at first it was not obvious what was missing and what was missing could only be determined after I put the whole story back together again.

This is something, it is clear that you have never done, and I bet you never will. This is the reason that you are still so completely uniformed about the events prior to the attacks on 9/11. This is the reason you are still living in your own fantasy land and not the real world.
There was a bit of information dissemination that occurred, but nothing that the various commissions did not detect. You should watch the three part video(https://www.history.com/shows/road-to-911) that was produced last year which detailed how the attacks were set up, paid for and executed by KSM. He wanted a grander plan but OBL nixed the effort and reduced the number of flights to 4.
So the CIA didn't allow this disaster nor did they stop it.
There is a better inter agency information flow and I hope that it is never used.

Last edited by bknight; 30th May 2019 at 09:59 AM. Reason: Three part video
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 12:33 PM   #96
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,485
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
But I do know what I am talking about, it is you that clearly doesn't know what you are talking about. Everyone knew that with respect to the al Qaeda terrorists, that because it was well known that their most important weapon, was secrecy, that any bit of information that the CIA got on al Qaeda, regardless of how small would be very important. You have posted a ridiculous straw man to try to prove your point, which it clearly fails to do!

And prior to 9/11, if any airline had done what you suggested, it would have resulted in an automatic 1.5 million dollar fine, courtesy of Norman Mineta.
Facts not in evidence.

If you knew anything about intelligence work in general, you'd know that there have always been more failures than successes.

The same goes for federal law enforcement agencies.

The premise that a zero-defect culture exists in either discipline is based on popular fiction, not study of the facts.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 01:15 PM   #97
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,705
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Can you show there was? And, you know very well know that it is impossible to prove a negative. Nice try, buy I refuse to fall for this trick!
You made the claim, "there was never any real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" for everyone to see. Prove it.

Funny how you try to shift responsibility of proof on others. I never asked you to prove a negative. Try again.

The only claim I have made is you can only prove your statement with hindsight. Post before this show this statement to be reasonable.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 30th May 2019 at 01:34 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:10 PM   #98
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,541
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
"CIA = Caused It All."

Truthers will usually work backward from that acronym, though most won't consistently post unsubstantiated walls of text in support of it.

Kudos paloalto.
The CIA wishes it was one Tenth as powerful as the Truther wackjobs think it is.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 03:07 PM   #99
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Were the actions of the CIA deliberate?

Well, they could have been. They could have deliberately acted to take certain steps, or to not take certain steps, not realising what the consequences would be.

However, do I believe that the CIA knew in advance, the exact details of the 9/11 attacks, who was going to carry out the plan, what the targets were, and how they were going execute the attacks, and then deliberately withheld vital information in order to allow them to happen? NO I DO NOT, and furthermore, I have seen no evidence that would exclusively support only that scenario. All the evidence you to have provided so far can be construed as negligence or stupidity - I believe in Hanlon's Razor, which loosely translates to 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity'

Intelligence agencies make mistakes all the time. IMO, one the biggest mistakes made by the CIA (in fact, by the entire intelligence community) was thinking it was a good idea to replace many of their human surveillance resources (spies) with satellites and electronic listening posts for intelligence gathering. This was a deliberate act, one that they had been systematically carrying out since the early 1990s, and one that lead to a situation in advance of 9/11 where, thanks to their observation of increased "chatter", they realized something was happening, but they did not know exactly what. The intelligence community knew that Osama Bin Laden was a threat… they knew Al Qaeda was a threat, and had even warned the White House of an attack on the homeland in August 2001, but they were unable to act on this intelligence because they didn’t know the intended target of the attack, or how it would be carried out. This is where actual human spies on the ground are much more valuable than simply listening to what the terrorists are saying to each other. Its even worse now than it was 20 years ago, because back then, high level encryption wasn't readily available to the public. It is now, which is why we have seen a move back to towards human "assets" in intelligence gathering.

Incidentally, that last part is one of the reasons why Trump's actions in allowing AG Barr to declassify top level CIA documents is so dangerous and reckless. The names of assets in Russia, the Ukraine, the Balkans and the Middle East WILL be compromised by these actions. Worse yet, it is very possible that those documents could contain the names of assets belonging to allies of the United States. Declassifying those documents will get either get some if these assets killed, or it will force them to get to a safe place. It takes many years to cultivate human assets in strategic places; Trump could undo all that in a heartbeat, and set Western allied intelligences agencies back many years.
you wote:

"Were the actions of the CIA deliberate?

Well, they could have been. They could have deliberately acted to take certain steps, or to not take certain steps, not realising what the consequences would be.

However, do I believe that the CIA knew in advance, the exact details of the 9/11 attacks, who was going to carry out the plan, what the targets were, and how they were going execute the attacks, and then deliberately withheld vital information in order to allow them to happen? NO I DO NOT, and furthermore, I have seen no evidence that would exclusively support only that scenario. All the evidence you to have provided so far can be construed as negligence or stupidity - I believe in Hanlon's Razor, which loosely translates to 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

If this is what you believe, then provide the evidence for your beliefs. It is that easy, and answer or provide an explanation for the questions I have poised in an earlier post.

Now if you think I am wrong, you or anyone else on this forum can answer the following questions, answers that so far have never been and I am sure will never be forth coming.

When Tenet knew on August 22, 2001, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in al Qaeda terrorist attack, why did they not warn anyone, absolutely no one, who could have prevented these attacks from taking place? Why did Tenet not rescind his order to Tom Wilshere, to criminally sabotage Steve Bongardt's criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by refusing to give him permission to pass the Kuala Lumpur information, and the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid bin Attash?

On August 23, 2001, one day later, Tenet and in fact many of the top managers at the CIA found out or already knew, that Zacharias Moussaoui, described as a Islamic extremist, had been arrested by Minneapolis FBI. Minneapolis FBI agents had requested help from the CIA, for information that they could use as probable cause in order to get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag and computer. Tenet, and the rest of the CIA refused to do anything, anything at all, to help the Minneapolis FBI agents in any way, in spite of the fact that Tenet had just found out the day before that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, in order to take part in the al Qaeda terrorist attack that the CIA and FBI had been getting warnings about since April 2001. The August 6 Presidential daily briefing papers over seen by Tenet, had already described a possible hijacking of commercial aircraft to be used to attack buildings located in Manhattan. Why did Tenet and the other people at the CIA, who had been made aware of Zacharias Moussaoui, and knew that al Qaeda terrorists, Mihdhar and Hazmi, were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that would cause mass US casualties, not give the Minneapolis FBI agents the information that they knew about this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack and that Mihdhar and Hazmi were in the US in order to take part in this attack?

Why did the CIA spy, Tom Wilshere, who had been moved from the CIA to the FBI ITOS unit in mid-May, and put in charge of all investigations of al Qaeda terrorists, not give Maltbie the information that al Qaeda terrorists, Mihdhar and Hazmi, were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that would cause mass US casualties, when he was in email communication with Maltbie on August 24, 2001, and found out that Maltbie and Frasca were sabotaging FBI Agent Harry Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui? Wilshere had been made aware of this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 21, 2001, 3 days earlier by FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, an FBI agent who was working at the bin Laden station at the CIA.

You and all of the rest of the “debunkers” have never been able to even begin to explain this, in any way.

But it gets worse. In November 2000, FBI FBI Agent Ali Soufan asked Louis Freeh, if he would contact CIA Director George Tenet and find out what the CIA and Tenet knew about any al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, and any information that the CIA had on Walid bin Attash. In spite of the fact that Tent had actually given Freeh, information on this meeting in January 2000, Freeh tells Soufan that Tenet and the CIA have no information on amy meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Freeh had criminally sabotaged the FBI's most important investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors in the Cole bombing and had hidden information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. This same information from the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting is also given to high level FBI manager Dale Watson who then gave this information to acting FBI Director Tom Pickard. Pickard is told that he does not have permission from Tenet to give this information to John Ashcroft. None of these high level FBI managers and directors ever give this information go the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

You and all of the other debunkers, not only have never even begin explained any of these inexplicable actions by people at the CIA, and FBI, but you never will, and by completely failing to explain this, you conclusively prove my point. Let me repeat this very important point, “by completely failing to explain why the CIA and FBI withheld material information from these two important FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US, information that would have prevented the attacks on 9/11, you conclusively prove my point “ that it was deliberate actions by managers at the CIA and by managers and agents at the FBI who had been corrupted by the CIA, and who shut down these investigations under orders by the CIA, that had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

Last edited by paloalto; 30th May 2019 at 03:11 PM.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 05:57 PM   #100
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You made the claim, "there was never any real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" for everyone to see. Prove it.

Funny how you try to shift responsibility of proof on others. I never asked you to prove a negative. Try again.

The only claim I have made is you can only prove your statement with hindsight. Post before this show this statement to be reasonable.
If you think there was "real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" then prove it. It is clear that there could never have been because in hindsight they never found any evidence at all of weapons of mass destruction, it they were never there, then there could have never have been any real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. You just proved my point. Thanks.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 06:10 PM   #101
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
[quote=paloalto;12711808]you wote:

Quote:
When Tenet knew on August 22, 2001, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in al Qaeda terrorist attack, why did they not warn anyone, absolutely no one, who could have prevented these attacks from taking place? Why did Tenet not rescind his order to Tom Wilshere, to criminally sabotage Steve Bongardt's criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by refusing to give him permission to pass the Kuala Lumpur information, and the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid bin Attash?
August 22 was the date the FBI learned that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the country. There was a heated exchange at Alec Station between the FBI and CIA over agency foot-dragging.

On the 23 the FBI begins a low intensity manhunt for the two men.

On August 24, 2001, Hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi are finally put on the FBI's terror watchlist.

Meanwhile, Wilshire had submitted a request to inform the FBI about the relationship between Khaled al-Mihdhar and Khallad in June, 2001. They never told him no, they just never answered his request. And Tenent was not in Wilshire's chain of command. So your timeline is off, and your question's foundation is inaccurate.


Quote:
On August 23, 2001, one day later, Tenet and in fact many of the top managers at the CIA found out or already knew, that Zacharias Moussaoui, described as a Islamic extremist, had been arrested by Minneapolis FBI.
And yet Zacarias Moussaoui had been taken into custody on August 16, seven days earlier. Obviously Al Qaeda was not an urgent issue at Langley (hence the creation of Alec Station).

Quote:
Minneapolis FBI agents had requested help from the CIA, for information that they could use as probable cause in order to get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag and computer. Tenet, and the rest of the CIA refused to do anything, anything at all, to help the Minneapolis FBI agents in any way, in spite of the fact that Tenet had just found out the day before that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, in order to take part in the al Qaeda terrorist attack that the CIA and FBI had been getting warnings about since April 2001.
You leave out the part where the Minneapolis FBI field office first requested evidence of Moussaoui's terrorist connections from a US legal attache in Paris. At the same time the field office send a memo to Michael Rolince, the FBI's counter-terror chief that goes unread. The memo said Mousssaoui was planning a terror attack. And that on August 20, attorneys at FBI HQ turn down the Minneapolis field office's request to get a warrant to search Moussaui's laptop.

You make it sound like Tenent held the keys to the investigation while the truth is the FBI was undercutting it's field agents at every step.


Quote:
Why did the CIA spy, Tom Wilshere, who had been moved from the CIA to the FBI ITOS unit in mid-May, and put in charge of all investigations of al Qaeda terrorists, not give Maltbie the information that al Qaeda terrorists, Mihdhar and Hazmi, were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that would cause mass US casualties, when he was in email communication with Maltbie on August 24, 2001, and found out that Maltbie and Frasca were sabotaging FBI Agent Harry Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui? Wilshere had been made aware of this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 21, 2001, 3 days earlier by FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, an FBI agent who was working at the bin Laden station at the CIA.
You've repeated yourself here. This is the lack of attention to detail that is causing your confusion on this issue.



Quote:
But it gets worse. In November 2000, FBI FBI Agent Ali Soufan asked Louis Freeh, if he would contact CIA Director George Tenet and find out what the CIA and Tenet knew about any al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, and any information that the CIA had on Walid bin Attash. In spite of the fact that Tent had actually given Freeh, information on this meeting in January 2000, Freeh tells Soufan that Tenet and the CIA have no information on amy meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Freeh had criminally sabotaged the FBI's most important investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors in the Cole bombing and had hidden information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. This same information from the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting is also given to high level FBI manager Dale Watson who then gave this information to acting FBI Director Tom Pickard. Pickard is told that he does not have permission from Tenet to give this information to John Ashcroft. None of these high level FBI managers and directors ever give this information go the FBI Cole bombing investigators.
Again, you leave out John O'Neil, and the FBI's bin Laden desk who were in charge of the Cole investigation, and how O'Neil's abrasive style compromised the investigation in Yemen. Had he been more diplomatic the FBI could have obtained that information on their own.

Quote:
You and all of the other debunkers, not only have never even begin explained any of these inexplicable actions by people at the CIA, and FBI, but you never will, and by completely failing to explain this, you conclusively prove my point. Let me repeat this very important point, “by completely failing to explain why the CIA and FBI withheld material information from these two important FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US, information that would have prevented the attacks on 9/11, you conclusively prove my point “ that it was deliberate actions by managers at the CIA and by managers and agents at the FBI who had been corrupted by the CIA, and who shut down these investigations under orders by the CIA, that had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.
We have explained it, you choose to ignore so many facts surrounding the FBI, the CIA, and their sub-Al Qaeda desks, which at the time were treated as a novelty by both agencies. Even after the 1993 WTC bombing, and the capture of the Millennium Bomber the FBI, and CIA treated terrorism as back-burner issues. You repeatedly ignore the NSA, and the INS, and their many failures that could have made a difference. You ignore that Alec Station and the New York FBI Office's bin Laden Desk worked independently from their counter-terrorism departments, and that this caused friction within both agencies. You also continue to ignore the larger social backdrop of the late 1990's which tied the hands of both the FBI (see: Waco, Ruby Ridge), and the CIA where both agencies were under constant investigations and Congressional hearings leaving most managers risk averse.

Both the FBI and CIA bear equal responsibility for the 9-11 attacks, but in the end it was Al Qaeda's willingness to take the risks necessary to make the strikes while the US government was unwilling to make similar risks to stop them.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:02 PM   #102
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Yes, the deliberate actions at the CIA, which allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people in the US, that is my beef.
Nope, the acts of 19 terrorists who faked hijacking murdered almost 3,000 people. Your conclusion is flawed.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:07 PM   #103
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
you wote:

"Were the actions of the CIA deliberate?

Well, they could have been. They could have deliberately acted to take certain steps, or to not take certain steps, not realising what the consequences would be.

However, do I believe>>> a bunch of other nonsense snipped .
So many lengthy posts full of drivel... so little actual evidence.

I'd say do better, but your posting history says it all. Tons of idiocy and no substance.

Truthers in 2019 still batting a big fat zero!
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 04:08 PM   #104
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,705
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
If you think there was "real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" then prove it. It is clear that there could never have been because in hindsight they never found any evidence at all of weapons of mass destruction, it they were never there, then there could have never have been any real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. You just proved my point. Thanks.
You're funny....Do you even know what hindsight means? I suspect not.

Again...I made no claim. Back up your claim using period data or retract it. You claim there was never a threat, you need to show this was never the case with belief at that time.

I'll wait.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 09:49 AM   #105
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,485
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
If you think there was "real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" then prove it.
You won't like this, but here goes.

With 20/20 hindsight, what you assert is pretty close to certain, except there is a side angle on this question.

It's not in dispute that Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and plenty of evidence that SH wanted to have WMD in his arsenal.

Iraqi military officers and scientists assigned to that task would well know what the penalty was in store for them if they failed.

In that environment, being a yes man might extend someone's life expectancy and nature could have very well taken it's course:

SH: "How's those A-bombs coming?"

Military honcho: "Any day now boss!"

Scientist: "just a couple of more parts and we're a go!"

SH could well have believed he had or was about to have WMD. It would explain much of the obfuscation on weapons inspections.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 05:05 AM   #106
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,788
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You won't like this, but here goes.

With 20/20 hindsight, what you assert is pretty close to certain, except there is a side angle on this question.

It's not in dispute that Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and plenty of evidence that SH wanted to have WMD in his arsenal.

Iraqi military officers and scientists assigned to that task would well know what the penalty was in store for them if they failed.

In that environment, being a yes man might extend someone's life expectancy and nature could have very well taken it's course:

SH: "How's those A-bombs coming?"

Military honcho: "Any day now boss!"

Scientist: "just a couple of more parts and we're a go!"

SH could well have believed he had or was about to have WMD. It would explain much of the obfuscation on weapons inspections.
An excellent process of mind think in a totalitarian system.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 10:10 AM   #107
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You're funny....Do you even know what hindsight means? I suspect not.

Again...I made no claim. Back up your claim using period data or retract it. You claim there was never a threat, you need to show this was never the case with belief at that time.

I'll wait.
In case that you were not aware of this, I never agreed to your ridiculous request not to use hindsight, and the fact that some anonymous internet poster made thus completely ridiculous request does not in any way compel any reply with this idiotic restriction. So let me restate my prior point:

"If you think there was "real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" then prove it. It is clear that there could never have been because in hindsight they never found any evidence at all of weapons of mass destruction, if they were never there, then there could have never have been any real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. You just proved my point."

But there are other ways to prove this, also. Several months back, several politicians, when asked why they voted for the Iraq war, stated that they based their votes on what is now known as flawed intelligence. But Nancy Pelosi, came right out in a public speech, after they said this, and stated that there had been no intelligence indicating that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Since she was there when the lead up to the war took place, she was clearly in one of the best positions to know what was intelligence and what was just plain BS. And I would take her word over the word of some anonymous poster on the internet any day. Again she stated that that there had been no intelligence indicating that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war in Iraq.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 12:02 PM   #108
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
In case that you were not aware of this, I never agreed to your ridiculous request not to use hindsight, and the fact that some anonymous internet poster made thus completely ridiculous request does not in any way compel any reply with this idiotic restriction. So let me restate my prior point:

"If you think there was "real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" then prove it. It is clear that there could never have been because in hindsight they never found any evidence at all of weapons of mass destruction, if they were never there, then there could have never have been any real suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. You just proved my point."

But there are other ways to prove this, also. Several months back, several politicians, when asked why they voted for the Iraq war, stated that they based their votes on what is now known as flawed intelligence. But Nancy Pelosi, came right out in a public speech, after they said this, and stated that there had been no intelligence indicating that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Since she was there when the lead up to the war took place, she was clearly in one of the best positions to know what was intelligence and what was just plain BS. And I would take her word over the word of some anonymous poster on the internet any day. Again she stated that that there had been no intelligence indicating that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war in Iraq.
This is why Pelosi is a moron:

UNSCOM, 1997:

Quote:
On 29 October, Iraq ordered all US members of UNSCOM inspection teams to leave its territory within a week. The move followed an UNSCOM determination of 7 October (see last issue) that Iraq was still concealing important information, and persisted in hindering UNSCOM activities, and a UN Security Council resolution of 23 October stipulating the imposition of a travel ban on Iraqi officials unless Iraq immediately complied with all UNSCOM demands. Iraq characterised both the UNSCOM verdict and the Security Council resolution as motivated by US, and to an almost equal degree British, spite and aggressive intent.
*source* http://www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/20iraq.htm

UNSCOM, February, 1998:

Quote:
Early Feb Two technical evaluation meetings (TEMS) take place in Baghdad, reviewing 1998 the position with respect to the chemical weapons agent VX. and missile warheads. The report of the outcome of the meetings is submitted to the Council (document S/1998/176). Despite Iraq’s assertions and it having had a full opportunity to present its views on all matters pertaining to the two issues, the team of UNSCOM international experts conclude unanimously that Iraq has still not provided sufficient information for the Commission to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required of it in these areas. The Commission’s experts provide the Council with an oral briefing of the outcome on these two TEMS in March 1998.
UNSCOM:

Quote:
8 Apr 1998 The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council (S/1998/308). As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate.
UNSCOM:

Quote:
14 Jul 1998 As a consequence of the high-level talks between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Executive Chairman in June 1998, a team of UNSCOM international biological experts is assembled in Baghdad to review, for the third time, Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme. The experts conclude that the declaration is not verifiable.
*source* https://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chro...ologyframe.htm

This links to a list of USCOM reports, most condemning Iraq for lack of cooperation:

https://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm

The facts surrounding Iraq's WMD's were murky, and that's exactly what Saddam wanted them to be. All he had to do was let UNSCOM do their job, and verify compliance, and he'd still be in power today. He bluffed and he lost.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 02:08 PM   #109
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,670
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This is why Pelosi is a moron:

UNSCOM, 1997:



*source* http://www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/20iraq.htm

UNSCOM, February, 1998:



UNSCOM:



UNSCOM:



*source* https://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chro...ologyframe.htm

This links to a list of USCOM reports, most condemning Iraq for lack of cooperation:

https://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm

The facts surrounding Iraq's WMD's were murky, and that's exactly what Saddam wanted them to be. All he had to do was let UNSCOM do their job, and verify compliance, and he'd still be in power today. He bluffed and he lost.
UNSCOM (and their inspections regime) was ended in 1998, and replaced by UNMOVIC in 1999, whoch however could not get inspections going until 2002, when, it seems, strong pressure was put on Iraq.

Here is the first UNMOVIC report:

https://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/2003-232.pdf

It explains how Iraq allowed inspections to procede without interference, unrestricted in time and space, and any time UNMOVIC decided they would, usually without prior announcement.

Page 4:
Quote:
14. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three quarters of these have been screened using UNMOVIC’s own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq’s declarations.
However, there were forbidden items - some of which Iraq declared and gave up for destruction.
  • 50 kg of mustard gas, which had been previously known about
  • a small number of 122 mm chemical munitions (empty)
  • two complete aerial bombs, one of which contained a liquid
In addition, Iraq declared its missiles program, which in parts violated UN restrictions.

The picture that emerges is that Iraq at the time had remnants of older, undestroyed stocks of a former chemical weapons program, and a missiles program that went too far. and UNMOVIC had layed a good basis to control what was going on and to discover all such remnants.

So by the end of February 2003, it was known by everybody who cared that Iraq did NOT have a WMD weapons program and did NOT have operational stockpiles. Hence no serious danger.



tl;dr: Iraq used to have chemical weapons and a chemical weapons program, but it was discontinued some time before 2002, and posed no real threat. The immense pressure on Iraq by the USA however had helped to get UN inspections back and make them efficient.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 02:27 PM   #110
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,670
The next UNMOVIC report, end of May 2003, describes the successful destruction of Iraq's left-over stockpiles of produced and pre-production materials for biological and chemical weapons, and the verification that Iraq had indeed destroyed those pre-1991 stockpiles they had previously declared as destroyed.

Again, the picture emerges that Iraq had mere left-overs - a 500-g jar of a mustard precursor here, some bag of expired growth agent for anthrax bacteria there. nothing in the way of an active program.

This successful work came to a complete halt when UNMOVIC had to leave Iraq in mid-March, folllowing threats by the USA.

At that point, the world KNEW that Iraq's former WMD programs were no longer a threat.

I quite distinctly remember having followed the development closely, including articles by member of UNMOVIC (e.g. in The Atlantic, iirc) before their withdrawal. When Colin Powell lied to the Security Council, when the USA committed the war crime of attacking Iraq, I was thoroughly convinced that the Bush regime was lying, as the evidence against their lies was already on the table. No hindsight. We knew before.

(But none of that has anything to do with 9/11, Mossad or FBI)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 04:52 PM   #111
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
And yet during the invasion, March 2003:

Quote:
United States marines who captured an Iraqi military base in Nassiriya found thousands of chemical protection suits and nerve gas antidote, raising fears that Baghdad may be planning a gas attack to fend off the US-led invasion, US officers said yesterday.
The marines found 3,000 chemical suits and a chest full of the antidote atropine in a hospital that they said Iraqi soldiers had been using as a base in the fight for a strategically important crossing point on the Euphrates river.
*source* https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...q.julianborger

Hans Blix was no help. In his June, 2003 report he states UN inspectors found no evidence of prohibited weapons programs as of March 18, 2003...but then says:

Quote:
Although during the last month and a half of inspections the Iraqi side had made considerable efforts to provide information, those efforts had not brought needed answers, he said. There had not been time to interview more than a handful of the large number of persons who were said by Iraq to have participated in the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons in 1991. Such interviews might have helped, but one must be aware that the totalitarian regime in Iraq continued to cast a shadow on the credibility of all interviews.


In the context of destruction of proscribed items, Appendix I of the report showed that the weapons that had been destroyed before inspectors left in 1998 had, in almost all cases, been declared by Iraq and the destruction had occurred before 1994. The existence of the biological weapons programme had been uncovered by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in 1995 despite Iraq’s denials. Only a few remnants of that programme had been found. A great deal -- Iraq asserted all – had been unilaterally destroyed in 1991.


He said that, while he was aware of the large amounts of proscribed items that still remained unaccounted for, note should be taken of the fact that for many years neither UNSCOM nor UNMOVIC made significant finds of weapons. The lack of finds could be because the items were unilaterally destroyed by the Iraqi authorities, or else because they were effectively concealed by them. He trusted that, in the new environment in Iraq, in which there was full access and cooperation, and in which knowledgeable witnesses should no longer be inhibited to reveal what they knew, it should be possible to establish the truth “we all want to know”.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sc7777.doc.htm

Blix could never say conclusively that Iraq was cleared, and that left the door open.

For the record, Langley never had a working operation inside Iraq until the invasion, so it had no independent source for intelligence, and it had no direct ability to obtain intel beyond satellites, and ELINT. There was a huge internat debate at Langley about the WMD assessment, but after their screw up with the pre-9/11 Al Qaeda intel the 1% Doctrine was the National Security order of the day.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:41 AM   #112
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,670
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And yet during the invasion, March 2003:



*source* https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...q.julianborger
And yet, they never found any WMD, did they?

Fun fact: During my basic training for mandatory military service, in 1993, I was equipped with - gasp! - a chemical protection suit and nerve gas antidote, and trained how to use both.
No one thought of attacking Germany for fear that we might have WMD. Such gear is primarily - as the name suggests - protective and defensive. I am pretty sure the US troops brought chemical protection suits and nerve gas antidote heading into Iraq.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Hans Blix was no help. In his June, 2003 report he states UN inspectors found no evidence of prohibited weapons programs as of March 18, 2003...but then says:

https://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sc7777.doc.htm

Blix could never say conclusively that Iraq was cleared, and that left the door open.
Actually, according to the judgement of pretty much the entire world, except war-yearning Americans, Blix was of great help, especially seeing that his assessment turned out to be correct.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
For the record, Langley never had a working operation inside Iraq until the invasion, so it had no independent source for intelligence, and it had no direct ability to obtain intel beyond satellites, and ELINT.
Stupid move then to kick out those who did have all the intel on the ground, plus the cooperation of Iraq.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
There was a huge internat debate at Langley about the WMD assessment, but after their screw up with the pre-9/11 Al Qaeda intel the 1% Doctrine was the National Security order of the day.
After the screw up was before the next screw up for Langley.

What you call "National Security order of the day", others call "blood-shot blinded eyes with hunger to commit war crimes".

tl;dr: Iraq had no WMD to pose an actual threat to anybody, and everybody knew this, except for blind and dumb USA.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 11:50 AM   #113
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
tl;dr: Iraq had no WMD to pose an actual threat to anybody, and everybody knew this, except for blind and dumb USA.
...and the Iraqi Army...

Quote:
The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/w...op-threat.html

It was a shell game. We didn't care if it was true. The tragedy is that had Bush waited, Saddam would have done something dumb enough to warrant military action...or not. Maybe today we'd be allies (again) against the Iranians. You know, talk them into another war with their neighbor. We can't do that now.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 3rd June 2019 at 11:52 AM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 02:07 PM   #114
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,670
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
...and the Iraqi Army...
Yeah, well, nobody ever claimed that a dictator is honest and open to his people and subordinates.

I meant everybody not subjected to crazy propaganda.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/w...op-threat.html

It was a shell game. We didn't care if it was true.
You should have stopped there.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The tragedy is that had Bush waited, Saddam would have done something dumb enough to warrant military action...or not. Maybe today we'd be allies (again) against the Iranians. You know, talk them into another war with their neighbor. We can't do that now.
Is any of this not criminally stupid?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 05:08 PM   #115
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Is any of this not criminally stupid?
The invasion of Iraq is the single dumbest thing the US has done since grandfathering in Slavery when we passed our Constitution, and will take as long to live down.

Our mission in Afghanistan suffered as a result, and now we've drifted so far off that we can't seem to declare some sort of victory, and go home.

The invasion of Iraq resulted in the industrialization of Jihad which AQI was able to draw upon to build an army of sorts in Iraq, and would evolve at Abu Ghraib into ISIS/ISIL. Because of our invasion of Iraq, Jihadists can organize quickly utilizing the many new networks which run parallel to Al Qaeda. In short, we stepped in it in the biggest way possible. Technically our invasion of Iraq gave Al Qaeda its biggest victory.

The problem which preceded the 2003 invasion, and even 9-11, was the general feeling in America that we should have "Finished the Job" in Iraq, and specifically how we should have "Kicked their a**", and by sundown on 9-11 we were looking for vengeance upon anyone in the middle east who so much as looked at us sideways. 9-11 cemented a new layer of bureaucratic stupidy across the government, and social stupidity which has given us our current glorious leader. No idea is too dumb for the US to pursue in 2019, and in many ways common sense has left the room.

To bring the conversation back around to the OP, the Bush Administration was drawing up plans for Iraq on 9-12-2001 even though it was clear that this had been an Al Qaeda strike. The working theory in the White House was, and stop me if you've heard this before, that Al Qaeda couldn't have pulled off the attacks alone, and that they had to have state sponsorship. In short, the invasion was a result of a branch of 9-11 Trutherism; the branch that says Iraq did it. This is why I have zero tolerance for CTists of any kind.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 11:18 PM   #116
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,154
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
All this talk about dancing Israelis, and no mention of the well documented celebrations of 9/11 by some people in the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, and some other parts of the world (including some reported high-fives among some US-based friends and associates of the hijackers in Southern California, right before and after 9/11 - these associates were Yemenis, Saudis, and perhaps others. And they were all Muslims).
It wasn't just Muslims. A great many people around the World were impressed by the audacity and spectacular results of the attack. And for those of us who hate America it brought a smile to our faces. It sucks that all those people died, but we brought it upon ourselves - and we deserved it.

Quote:
Uh oh, no Dancing Jews Israelis. Certainly no Mossad operatives, unless Mossad has become so embarrassingly incompetent...
Oh dear. Did you miss the part where the FBI investigated and found that the so-called 'dancing Israelis' were MOSAD agents, and we kicked them out with a stern warning to Israel to stop spying on us?

Quote:
...that they're recruiting jihadist sympathizers in Muslim communities who brag about their love of Osama bin Laden.
Another straw man. Nobody made that claim here. But there is documented evidence that at least some MOSSAD agents were anti-American, and thus might be somewhat sympathetic towards Osama bin Laden (enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that) though of course that does not mean that they would knowingly recruit 'jihadist sympathizers'.

Quote:
Seems a bit far-fetched, but then again, so does Mossad being behind 9/11.
OMG another straw man!

You need to stop reading between the lines and inserting stuff that isn't there. Israeli does not equal Jew, and any mention of Israelis that doesn't describe them in glowing terms is not antisemitism. Plenty of Israelis are themselves not too happy with the actions of some of their compatriots, just as in any in other country.

An unbiased discussion of 9/11 related material doesn't automatically make someone a CTer. Your problem is that by automatically assuming we are all CTers, and attacking arguments we didn't make, you show yourself as being unable to give up preconceived notions and examine evidence rationally - just like 9/11 truthers.

Quote:
CE, why did you neglect to mention these celebrations of 9/11 in this thread?
Because they are irrelevant?

What is relevant to this thread is the FBI's investigation into certain suspicious characters, and what evidence they may have found of "Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks". If you read the actual article (instead of just the spaces between the lines) you may find the questionable bit that this theory hinges on. And then we could have a rational discussion about it - without the straw.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 3rd June 2019 at 11:49 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 11:49 PM   #117
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,154
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
To bring the conversation back around to the OP, the Bush Administration was drawing up plans for Iraq on 9-12-2001 even though it was clear that this had been an Al Qaeda strike. The working theory in the White House was, and stop me if you've heard this before, that Al Qaeda couldn't have pulled off the attacks alone, and that they had to have state sponsorship.
Yes, and it was common knowledge that the Bush administration was gunning for Iraq even before the attack, so using it as an excuse was expected. That so may people were sucked into believing the lie is one of the most shameful moments in US history - though also not unexpected.

Quote:
In short, the invasion was a result of a branch of 9-11 Trutherism; the branch that says Iraq did it. This is why I have zero tolerance for CTists of any kind.
Yes, and the sick fact is that there was a conspiracy by the US government - to pin the blame on Iraq so they could invade. Considering how blatantly they manipulated the public, and the fortuitousness of the attack occurring just when they needed it, CTers can be forgiven for theorizing that they had a hand in it. And while many of them went off the deep end after the evidence showed otherwise, that is no worse than believing that Hillary was running a child sex ring from the basement of a pizza restaurant, or that Global Warming is a myth invented by the Chinese. The truths is, it's not just a few on the fringe who are invested in conspiracy theories.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 3rd June 2019 at 11:52 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 02:34 AM   #118
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,981
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Evidence?
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Seconded.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

Oh dear. Did you miss the part where the FBI investigated and found that the so-called 'dancing Israelis' were MOSAD agents, and we kicked them out with a stern warning to Israel to stop spying on us?
Third time of asking: I think you missed the part where you were asked to provide evidence for this claim.
I have found nothing in the OP and its links to support this. Perhaps you can point out where this was reported?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 11:45 AM   #119
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,031
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
It wasn't just Muslims. A great many people around the World were impressed by the audacity and spectacular results of the attack. And for those of us who hate America it brought a smile to our faces. It sucks that all those people died, but we brought it upon ourselves - and we deserved it.

What the...

There is no point in debating anything with you. This is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You don't think it "sucks that all those people died." THAT is precisely what "brought a smile" to your face. Don't lie.

Last edited by Allen773; 4th June 2019 at 11:50 AM.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 12:59 PM   #120
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,473
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
It wasn't just Muslims. A great many people around the World were impressed by the audacity and spectacular results of the attack. And for those of us who hate America it brought a smile to our faces. It sucks that all those people died, but we brought it upon ourselves - and we deserved it.
Indeed. On the Saturday afternoon about a week after the 9/11 attacks, I went to my local Golf Club for my usual weekly round. First person I met was a golfing buddy if mine, an American (in fact a New Yorker). I told him I was sorry about what happened in his hometown, His answer is burned into my brain... "It's a tragedy alright, but it also a tragedy that most Americans won't understand why it happened"

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The invasion of Iraq is the single dumbest thing the US has done since grandfathering in Slavery when we passed our Constitution, and will take as long to live down.

Our mission in Afghanistan suffered as a result, and now we've drifted so far off that we can't seem to declare some sort of victory, and go home.

The invasion of Iraq resulted in the industrialization of Jihad which AQI was able to draw upon to build an army of sorts in Iraq, and would evolve at Abu Ghraib into ISIS/ISIL. Because of our invasion of Iraq, Jihadists can organize quickly utilizing the many new networks which run parallel to Al Qaeda. In short, we stepped in it in the biggest way possible. Technically our invasion of Iraq gave Al Qaeda its biggest victory.
Frankly, I think going off and invading other countries for political & economic reasons is a very dumb idea. You might make some short term gain from it, but you end up killing tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, so in the long run, you are bound to piss a lot of people off. Every surviving family member in an invasion is a potential terrorist. The USA has succeeded in generating three generations of such terrorists. As technology has improved over the last 30 or so years, some sort of terrorist attacks on the homeland were bound to happen, and as long as America keeps pissing the rest of the world off with illegal, unfounded invasions, the more terrorists it will create.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.