Belgian MP Laurent Louis Tells It Like It Is

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything this honest and unbridled from a politician before. He exposes the many lies of the War on Terror, 9/11, the Western elite's neocolonial foreign agenda, and some of the corporate/financial interests involved in the looting of "globalization". He even adds in a string of F-bombs for good measure. It's well worth a watch. The speech is in French, so use the 'captions' button to switch to English subtitles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkzXTgslFNE

[G8trGr8t]

9/11 was made up..OK..and he probably believes the Holocaust didn't happen either

[wgbgator]

It would be funny if those captions were inserted over this guy talking about something like EU farm policy.

[MichiGator2002]

It would be funny if those captions were inserted over this guy talking about something like EU farm policy.

Arguably more coherent, too.

[Gatorrick22]

Jackassery.

[ChartsandGrafs]

9/11 was made up..OK..and he probably believes the Holocaust didn't happen either

Yes, the U.S. government told you the "truth" about 9/11. They lie to you about everything else under the sun, but on that day they were being honest.

LOL.

[MichiGator2002]

Yes, the U.S. government told you the "truth" about 9/11. They lie to you about everything else under the sun, but on that day they were being honest.

LOL.

Towers are still there. Zionist entity uses it as headquarters of new world order under a cloaking device.

[Dreamliner]

The 9/11 controversy sort of reminds me of a Christian pastor I saw interviewed on TV years ago. On being asked what he thought of supposed Satanic messages, on records, when played backwards, the pastor responded, "Never mind what they say when they're played backwards. I'm concerned enough about what they say when they're played forwards."

Never mind theories about the government blowing up the towers. Government policies more or less served to ensure that somebody would try to blow them up.

[gatorev12]

Towers are still there. Zionist entity uses it as headquarters of new world order under a cloaking device.

The DIC (Disney-Industrial Complex) must be satisfied.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Towers are still there. Zionist entity uses it as headquarters of new world order under a cloaking device.

Sounds just as nutty as the caveman mastermind conspiracy theory you were brainwashed to believe.

"The government said so, the government said so!"

LOL.

[gatorev12]

Sounds just as nutty as the caveman mastermind conspiracy theory you were brainwashed to believe.

"The government said so, the government said so!"


Sounds like someone's still traumatized from how your parents lied to you about Santa Claus for years.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Sounds like someone's still traumatized from how your parents lied to you about Santa Claus for years.

LOL, says the guy who got shipped off to Afghanistan based on a lie.

[cocodrilo]

George W. Bush saw the first plane hit the WTC on TV as it happened. I wonder who told him to tune in to what channel. Actually I imagine someone did it for him and he just watched.

He did nothing till the second plane hit, after which, you guessed it, he did nothing, except hang around a schoolhouse full of kids for half a hour during terrorist attacks with his whereabouts known. Imagine the government worrying about a bunch of kids getting killed in a schoolhouse.

[malligator]

George W. Bush saw the first plane hit the WTC on TV as it happened. I wonder who told him to tune in to what channel. Actually I imagine someone did it for him and he just watched.

He did nothing till the second plane hit, after which, you guessed it, he did nothing, except hang around a schoolhouse full of kids for half a hour during terrorist attacks with his whereabouts known. Imagine the government worrying about a bunch of kids getting killed in a schoolhouse.

I wasn't aware there was live footage of the first plane hitting the towers. Amateur video shown after the fact, sure, but I didn't know the first was shown live.

[cocodrilo]

I wasn't aware there was live footage of the first plane hitting the towers. Amateur video shown after the fact, sure, but I didn't know the first was shown live.

Obviously he would have had to watch it on a closed circuit connection.

[gatorev12]

I wasn't aware there was live footage of the first plane hitting the towers. Amateur video shown after the fact, sure, but I didn't know the first was shown live.

I'm pretty sure coco was exaggerating since he obviously didn't post a link to substantiate the claim.

[rivergator]

George W. Bush saw the first plane hit the WTC on TV as it happened. I wonder who told him to tune in to what channel. Actually I imagine someone did it for him and he just watched.

He did nothing till the second plane hit, after which, you guessed it, he did nothing, except hang around a schoolhouse full of kids for half a hour during terrorist attacks with his whereabouts known. Imagine the government worrying about a bunch of kids getting killed in a schoolhouse.

Really, TV stations had their camera locked on to the WTC, just in case?

[gatorev12]

LOL, says the guy who got shipped off to Afghanistan based on a lie.

I saw the intelligence we had before and after the war was started, so whatever conspiracy theory may sound plausible to the uneducated/ignorant (and I use that word only to describe someone who lacks information on the topic at hand since you obviously haven't) does not remotely sound plausible to me.

You shouldn't laugh off childhood trauma. Millions of people suffer from it around the globe. Your black/white understanding of truths/untruths obviously suggests you've been traumatized at some level by it--and any shrink will tell you that the overwhelming amount of mental illnesses developed in adulthood have their roots in childhood mental trauma. In truth, I was guessing about the Santa Claus thing--but it seemed plausible since most parents are forced to their children about it over the course of several years. There could have been another lie they told you for years that contributed to your black/white understanding of truths/untruths that I don't know about.

[cocodrilo]

I'm pretty sure coco was exaggerating since he obviously didn't post a link to substantiate the claim.

Here's one just for you, sweetie.

www.freedomforceinternational.org/audio/BushSawPlane.mp3

[ChartsandGrafs]

I saw the intelligence we had before and after the war was started, so whatever conspiracy theory may sound plausible to the uneducated/ignorant (and I use that word only to describe someone who lacks information on the topic at hand since you obviously haven't) does not remotely sound plausible to me.



LOL, yes, just as Colin Powell saw the "intelligence" for Iraqi WMDs before the war in Iraq.

True Believer talk.

[gatorev12]

Here's one just for you, sweetie.

www.freedomforceinternational.org/audio/BushSawPlane.mp3

Thanks coco.

That does help clarify you were exaggerating, as I suspected, since Bush pretty clearly didn't say "I saw it live."

[cocodrilo]

Thanks coco.

That does help clarify you were exaggerating, as I suspected, since Bush pretty clearly didn't say "I saw it live."

Then how did he see it? Who was showing video of the first strike as Bush went into the Sarasota schoolhouse?

My guess: he watched live in his limo before getting out.

[ChartsandGrafs]

My guess: he watched live in his limo before getting out.

Maybe that's why those Israelis were witnessed filming the attack and dancing in the aftermath.

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

[CHFG8R]

Did anyone actually watch it? I did.

1. From the little I remember from 2 years of French, he was not talking about farm policy.
2. He mentions 9/11 once (literally) in the entire 14minutes.
3. He never says anything about the supposed 9/11 conspiracy, but mentions use of 9/11 as the imputus for the Invasion of Iraq, an invasion he has a rather cynical (as do I) view of.
4. The point of the rant is to attach Belgium's support of French/USA policy in the ME, specfically the policy of supporting Islamist revolutions in Liyba, Syria, Egypt while going after them in Mali. He believes this is motivated by corporate interests (names a big French mining operation and their attempts to purchase uranium mine in Mali over last few years).

It was actually very coherent and, frankly, I can't say I disagree with much of what he says.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Did anyone actually watch it? I did.

Of course not. If it's not a U.S. politician or corporate TV news journalist standing in front of a camera and reading a teleprompter full of government-approved information, they won't watch or pay any attention to it. If it doesn't correspond with what they heard on TV, it's "crazy talk" or "conspiracy theory".

[CHFG8R]

I'm not going there, but it was worth watching. Ron Paul would approve of most, if not all of it.

[gatorev12]

My guess: he watched live in his limo before getting out.

Just so we're clear here, you're agreeing that Bush never actually said (or claimed to) that he saw the attack live, correct?

After all, if you're needing to "guess" at all, it's probably a good answer that you don't know and have no facts to support your "guess."

[gatorev12]

Here's Gatorev12 watching his evening television news "programming":


While we're posting pictures of what we think other posters do in real life, I found something that pretty accurately reflects your feelings on Disney and the Jonas Brothers:

http://img2-3.timeinc.net/people/i/2008/news/080623/taylor_hicks240.jpg

[ArtVandelay]

Is that you Charts?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Conspiracy+Keanu.+Came+up+with+this+while+watching +Ancient+Aliens_e258b7_3332258.jpg

[cocodrilo]

Just so we're clear here, you're agreeing that Bush never actually said (or claimed to) that he saw the attack live, correct?

After all, if you're needing to "guess" at all, it's probably a good answer that you don't know and have no facts to support your "guess."

Typical BS. He said that he saw it. There is no way he saw it except live, unless you can answer my question as to who was showing video of it at that time.

Why would he say he saw it if he didn't? My guess (and I have facts to back up my guess - HE SAID THAT HE SAW IT) is that he did not see it where he said he did, on a TV in the schoolhouse corridor (where we're supposed to believe the President of the United States was kept waiting) but he saw it on a TV in his limo.

If you listen to how he says it, he appears he finds it necessary to say parenthetically (having already opened his stupid mouth) that there was a TV in the schoolhouse corridor, where he was supposedly cooling his heels, since it's unlikely he would want to say that he saw it in his limo, since that would be getting too close to the truth of the event. Having said that he saw it, the best thing to say was that he saw it somehow in the schoolhouse and quickly move on.

I provided a link to let Bush speak for himself. (To quote Lou Costello in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, "I saw what I saw when I saw it.") I know that you cannot accept what he says in plain English, so make of it what you will. I'm not interested in your games.

[gatorev12]

Typical BS. He said that he saw it. There is no way he saw it except live, unless you can answer my question as to who was showing video of it at that time.

Why would he say he saw it if he didn't? My guess (and I have facts to back up my guess - HE SAID THAT HE SAW IT) is that he did not see it where he said he did, on a TV in the schoolhouse corridor (where we're supposed to believe the President of the United States was kept waiting) but he saw it on a TV in his limo.

If you listen to how he says it, he appears he finds it necessary to say parenthetically (having already opened his stupid mouth) that there was a TV in the schoolhouse corridor, where he was supposedly cooling his heels, since it's unlikely he would want to say that he saw it in his limo, since that would be getting too close to the truth of the event. Having said that he saw it, the best thing to say was that he saw it somehow in the schoolhouse and quickly move on.

I provided a link to let Bush speak for himself. (To quote Lou Costello in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, "I saw what I saw when I saw it.") I know that you cannot accept what he says in plain English, so make of it what you will. I'm not interested in your games.

That's a lot of huffin and puffin there...but for all your lengthy explanation (and to borrow your Lou Costello quote), there's still nothing in Bush's words to substantiate your claim he saw it live.

It's not a game to observe that there's a difference between the statements:

"I saw it on live tv" and "I saw it that morning."

Here's a practical example: Wednesday afternoon, Chelsea was playing Swansea in a soccer game. I was at work and was not watching the game, but a friend texted me asking if I "saw what happened" (a player kicked a ball boy who refused to give him the ball). I immediately looked for a video of the incident and found one about 15-20 minutes after it happened (gotta love modern technology).

I can say I "saw it"...but I can't say "I saw it live."

Get it? Or need me to draw a diagram with colorful pictures and pop-out cartoon figures for you to process the difference?

[cocodrilo]

Let me make this as simple as I can and I'm through.

He said that he saw it.

On a TV.

In the schoolhouse corridor while waiting to enter the classroom.

He didn't have to say "I saw it live." THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY HE COULD SEE IT.

Understand? No.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Here's a practical example: Wednesday afternoon, Chelsea was playing Swansea in a soccer game. I was at work and was not watching the game, but a friend texted me asking if I "saw what happened" (a player kicked a ball boy who refused to give him the ball). I immediately looked for a video of the incident and found one about 15-20 minutes after it happened (gotta love modern technology).



LOL, the problem with this is the amateur video showing the first plane hitting the World Trade Center didn't air on any of the network channels until much later that evening. We're talking 10-12 hours before the video even surfaced here. So how did Bush see what he claimed to see that morning?

Your response: "Uh derpa, derpa, derpa... the government wouldn't lie to us, they said so!"

[Dreamliner]

But the government did save us from 9/11.

Ohm wait, it didn't. Private citizens had to both inform the government and intervene in one of the hijackings.

[gatorev12]

Let me make this as simple as I can and I'm through.

He said that he saw it.

On a TV.

In the schoolhouse corridor while waiting to enter the classroom.

He didn't have to say "I saw it live." THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY HE COULD SEE IT.

Understand? No.

George W. Bush saw the first plane hit the WTC on TV as it happened.


Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=255277#ixzz2J2NKvDkW

You're right...I don't understand because you're doing a piss-poor job of explaining yourself. You made the claim above he saw the event "as it happened." In other words: in real time, not after the fact.

All Bush said was that he heard about a plane hitting the tower--and then saw it on tv outside the classroom. He didn't give any indication if it was in real-time (ie: on live tv) or not.

[wargunfan]

LOL, the problem with this is the amateur video showing the first plane hitting the World Trade Center didn't air on any of the network channels until much later that evening. We're talking 10-12 hours before the video even surfaced here. So how did Bush see what he claimed to see that morning?

Your response: "Uh derpa, derpa, derpa... the government wouldn't lie to us, they said so!"

That's not true. I saw video of the first plane hitting the tower that morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

[ChartsandGrafs]

That's not true. I saw video of the first plane hitting the tower that morning.

You mean, you saw it three hours later, like the video caption says.

Bush said he saw the first plane hit before he went into the classroom. So how did he see that happen three hours or more before the video even aired on TV?

[MichiGator2002]

The best part of the 9/11 conspiracy pathos is how it requires, absolutely requires, that probably tens of thousands of eye witnesses were either controlled, coerced, or part of the conspiracy. Plus, also, the demolition-nuts have to believe that out of thousands of people whose second to second movements can't be controlled, nobody noticed anybody setting up any, y'know, demolitions prior to the supposed demolition project. Because they all had to be, again, controlled, coerced, or killed.

Conspiracism attributes omniscience, omnipresense, and omnipotence to regular people, the facelss, nameless They of government and industry... but simultaneously thinks regular people can't come up or execute mad brilliance like "let's hijack some planes run by people trained to think we will want to fly to Cuba and use them as cruise missiles instead".

[wargunfan]

You mean, you saw it three hours later, like the video caption says.

Bush said he saw the first plane hit before he went into the classroom. So how did he see that happen three hours or more before the video even aired on TV?

My point was that it was not, as you stated, 10-12 hours later.

My wife called me to the TV at very close to 9am to see the first tower burning and the accounts of a plane hitting the tower.
I don't think Bush saw the first plane hit the tower live. I know how bush could scramble his thoughts when speaking extemporaneously. I do think he saw the tower burning on TV and heard the reports of what happened. But then I don't believe every hair brained conspiracy theory either.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The best part of the 9/11 government worshiper conspiracy pathos is it requires not a shred of credible, independently verifiable evidence. In other words, it's true because, and for no other reason than, the government and TV said so. When you ask these people how they know the government told the truth or conducted a thorough, honest investigation, they say something like, "because the government couldn't and wouldn't do something like a 9/11 false flag". When you ask them how they can be sure of this they say, "because the government said so".

It's a LOL-worthy state of affairs.

[MichiGator2002]

The best part of the 9/11 government worshiper conspiracy pathos is it requires not a shred of credible, independently verifiable evidence. In other words, it's true because, and for no other reason than, the government and TV said so. When you ask these people how they know the government told the truth or conducted a thorough, honest investigation, they say something like, "because the government couldn't and wouldn't do something like a 9/11 false flag". When you ask them how they can be sure of this they say, "because the government said so".

It's a LOL-worthy state of affairs.

No, it's "true" because the aforementioned thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses that saw it unfold with their very eyes, not to mention the video that would have to be edited to better production quality than "Avatar" in about the span of a half hour and imposed upon the media (unless THEY ARE ALL IN ON IT, because that's a sign of rational thinking). It's "true" because only with a powerful delusional structure at work could one seriously think the same government who can't issue driver's licenses faster than a half dozen an hour or so can manage to instantly control/coerce/kill off/otherwise account for literally millions of independent actors. The reason conspiracists sound like something out of a movie is because only in a movie could the ridiculous crap they believe actually be possible -- and only because, in a movie, it can be given Plot Armor.

The funny thing is that our government and corporate megaliths could probably be doing a thousand "conspiracies" a month relatively unnoticed, because in the real world, they would have to be selective and opportunistic. Aim small, miss small. A conspiracy to kill Random Bureaucrat Bob, very doable. And all the easier to get away with, probably, because the people otherwise observant enough to spot it are too busy on big over-the-top Candyland BS like 9/11 truther tomfoolery.

[ChartsandGrafs]

But then I don't believe every hair brained conspiracy theory either.

You mean, kind of like the hair brained Al-Qaeda 9/11 conspiracy theory the government brainwashed you into believing? The one featuring a bunch of clowns with box cutters led by a caveman on dialysis?

LOL. Come on, man.

[wargunfan]

The best part of the 9/11 government worshiper conspiracy pathos is it requires not a shred of credible, independently verifiable evidence. In other words, it's true because, and for no other reason than, the government and TV said so. When you ask these people how they know the government told the truth or conducted a thorough, honest investigation, they say something like, "because the government couldn't and wouldn't do something like a 9/11 false flag". When you ask them how they can be sure of this they say, "because the government said so".

It's a LOL-worthy state of affairs.

Charts, a large majority of the posters on THFSG are ready and willing to believe that the government (especially the CIA and other covert agencies) is able and actually does conduct false flag activities. What separates us from you is that you believe that every action of the government is subversive and designed to cover up misdeeds. I don't see government conspiracies everywhere I look. You do.

[ursidman]

The best part of the 9/11 government worshiper conspiracy pathos is it requires not a shred of credible, independently verifiable evidence. In other words, it's true because, and for no other reason than, the government and TV said so. When you ask these people how they know the government told the truth or conducted a thorough, honest investigation, they say something like, "because the government couldn't and wouldn't do something like a 9/11 false flag". When you ask them how they can be sure of this they say, "because the government said so".

It's a LOL-worthy state of affairs.

My sympathies and pity for the disease that could cause you to think that there are so many otherwise normal people but for their government employ that causes them for a paycheck to regularly trot out to massacre scores of their countrymen so that the overlords could realize potential political gain. There is an ignore button for such as you.:wave:

[ChartsandGrafs]

No, it's "true" because the aforementioned thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses that saw it unfold with their very eyes, not to mention the video that would have to be edited to better production quality than "Avatar" in about the span of a half hour and imposed upon the media (unless THEY ARE ALL IN ON IT, because that's a sign of rational thinking). It's "true" because only with a powerful delusional structure at work could one seriously think the same government who can't issue driver's licenses faster than a half dozen an hour or so can manage to instantly control/coerce/kill off/otherwise account for literally millions of independent actors. The reason conspiracists sound like something out of a movie is because only in a movie could the ridiculous crap they believe actually be possible -- and only because, in a movie, it can be given Plot Armor.

The funny thing is that our government and corporate megaliths could probably be doing a thousand "conspiracies" a month relatively unnoticed, because in the real world, they would have to be selective and opportunistic. Aim small, miss small. A conspiracy to kill Random Bureaucrat Bob, very doable. And all the easier to get away with, probably, because the people otherwise observant enough to spot it are too busy on big over-the-top Candyland BS like 9/11 truther tomfoolery.

LOL. This is an example of True Believer logic:

Because people saw planes hitting buildings, that alone precludes the possibility of the attacks being orchestrated by a state sponsor. The only possible explanation is an organic terrorist attack.

Good grief, LULZ.

[ChartsandGrafs]

My sympathies and pity for the disease that could cause you to think that there are so many otherwise normal people but for their government employ that causes them for a paycheck to regularly trot out to massacre scores of their countrymen so that the overlords could realize potential political gain. There is an ignore button for such as you.:wave:

In other words...

http://www.mokummarketing.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/head-in-sand-2.JPG

[Gatorrick22]

Yes, the U.S. government told you the "truth" about 9/11. They lie to you about everything else under the sun, but on that day they were being honest.

LOL.



:Face-palm: :rolleyes:

[madgator]

Here's one just for you, sweetie.

www.freedomforceinternational.org/audio/BushSawPlane.mp3



are you kidding with this as your proof?

[madgator]

after reading your follow up posts.....I guess not


:crazy:



you do realize that the press coverage of the WTC after the first plane hit but BEFORE the second plane hit was pretty much every where on every station.

heck I was in class in law school and I heard about the first tower being hit.


if you listen to what he said, it should be more properly inferred that he was watching the news of the coverage of the first plane. Not that he watched the first plane hit.

then he went out, and that's when he was told about the second plane hitting.


makes perfect and very logical sense.

[MichiGator2002]

LOL. This is an example of True Believer logic:

Because people saw planes hitting buildings, that alone precludes the possibility of the attacks being orchestrated by a state sponsor. The only possible explanation is an organic terrorist attack.

Good grief, LULZ.

As opposed to the abject lack of any circumstantial or direct evidence of any kind supporting a sweeping and intricate government conspiracy. Because, again, that is where rational thinking people place their credulity.

[ChartsandGrafs]

As opposed to the abject lack of any circumstantial or direct evidence of any kind supporting a sweeping and intricate government conspiracy. Because, again, that is where rational thinking people place their credulity.

LOL. Who controlled the 9/11 investigation? Who controlled the follow-up inquiry? How do you know it wasn't a cover-up? How do you know you saw the entire body of evidence? Let me guess, because the government said so?

Seriously, how have you gone about determining Al-Qaeda's legitimacy as an independent terrorist network and the true source of their financial support? Teach me.

[MichiGator2002]

LOL. Who controlled the 9/11 investigation? Who controlled the follow-up inquiry? How do you know it wasn't a cover-up? How do you know you saw the entire body of evidence? Let me guess, because the government said so?

Seriously, how have you gone about determining Al-Qaeda's legitimacy as an independent terrorist network and the true source of their financial support? Teach me.

Lack of proof is proof per se. Also behavior that nobody will find any reference to in the DSM.

Just to be clear, the several years of al Qaeda being a known quantity for anybody who had more than brushed past world news... that was all misinformation put out there in advance of the big show, wasn't it? Of course, I was blind.

I laugh but sort of weep at how effortlessly you believe in conspiracies that require accounting for the knowledge or disclosure (by whatever means, bribery, extortion, murder, etc) of tens of thousands of people, conservatively, for even years in preperation and indefinitely after the object of the conspiracy. Like you don't even see the magical thinking it takes to believe for a second so many could do so much for so long.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Lack of proof is proof per se. Also behavior that nobody will find any reference to in the DSM.

In other words, you can't really address any of my questions.

I figured as much.

Just to be clear, the several years of al Qaeda being a known quantity for anybody who had more than brushed past world news... that was all misinformation put out there in advance of the big show, wasn't it? Of course, I was blind.

Why, is there some reason it couldn't have been corporate media misinformation? If the U.S. government was covertly funding Al-Qaeda through the CIA black budget or through off-budget accounting tricks (think Iran-Contra here), do you honestly believe the controlled media would know or tell you about it?

Where's the evidence proving that Al-Qaeda truly is what we are told?

I laugh but sort of weep at how effortlessly you believe in conspiracies that require accounting for the knowledge or disclosure (by whatever means, bribery, extortion, murder, etc) of tens of thousands of people, conservatively, for even years in preperation and indefinitely after the object of the conspiracy. Like you don't even see the magical thinking it takes to believe for a second so many could do so much for so long.

This idea that a U.S. government false flag would require "tens of thousands" of people is a canard. There's absolutely nothing supporting it other than your own magical thinking.

Have you really no knowledge of the U.S. government's compartmentalization and its ability to carry out relatively small-scale covert intelligence operations in total secrecy?

[gatorev12]

Have you really no knowledge of the U.S. government's compartmentalization and its ability to carry out relatively small-scale covert intelligence operations in total secrecy?

well, charts...here's your chance to prove us all wrong: assuming this was a false-flag operation, which are the 5 agencies that would need to be involved to plan and execute such an operation??

After all, if you're really "in the know"...such information will be incredibly easy to obtain. Hell, it isn't even classified information, so you'll be able to wow us with your knowledge about how the US government purports to operate.

[gatorev12]

You mean, kind of like the hair brained Al-Qaeda 9/11 conspiracy theory the government brainwashed you into believing? The one featuring a bunch of clowns with box cutters led by a caveman on dialysis?


Believing the "official conspiracy" means believing that between 30-100 people orchestrated the event in total secrecy.

Believing the "alternative conspiracy" that the US government conspiracy planned, orchestrated, and implemented the attack requires several thousand individuals, at minimum, to implement.

From a sheer numbers perspective, believing the narrative that entails 30-100 people keeping absolutely and completely silent vis a vis well over 1000 people keeping totally and completely silent sounds pretty reasonable.

But then again, one is assuming a rational human being. It takes a certain degree of irrationalism (if not outright delusion) to subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories proffered.

[ChartsandGrafs]

well, charts...here's your chance to prove us all wrong: assuming this was a false-flag operation, which are the 5 agencies that would need to be involved to plan and execute such an operation??

Are you really trying to say that there's a certain protocol the U.S. government must follow, involving the participation of five different agencies, to plan and execute an *illegal* false flag intelligence operation?

LOL!

After all, if you're really "in the know"...such information will be incredibly easy to obtain. Hell, it isn't even classified information, so you'll be able to wow us with your knowledge about how the US government purports to operate.

No, I insist, you show us evidence of this alleged protocol that must be followed to carry out *illegal* covert operations, since you're the one claiming it exists.

Pics or it didn't happen!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Believing the "alternative conspiracy" that the US government conspiracy planned, orchestrated, and implemented the attack requires several thousand individuals, at minimum, to implement.



LOL! Yes, CIA covert operations involve thousands of people! LOL! They let everyone in on those plans! Before such an operation is carried out, the CIA calls every government department in existence and tells them exactly what they are going to do!

LOL!

[gatorev12]

This idea that a U.S. government false flag would require "tens of thousands" of people is a canard. There's absolutely nothing supporting it other than your own magical thinking.


...except, that isn't what you claim.

In addition to the US government, you also claim the media is 100% on board and that independent scientists who've reviewed the facts/evidence are also 100% on board.

It isn't *just* the US government who's to blame...it's the media and everyone else who supports the official narrative. Including independent scientists like the Popular Science folks who did an exhaustive review of the facts and the conspiracy theories out there and concluded that the official version is the correct version. Hasn't stopped asshat conspiracy theorists from claiming the Popular Science editors were "also in on the conspiracy."


Have you really no knowledge of the U.S. government's compartmentalization and its ability to carry out relatively small-scale covert intelligence operations in total secrecy?


The answer to your own question lies (and I emphasize lies) within your own post: small-scale.

As in: not very many.

Successful intelligence operations are limited in scope--and especially false-flag operations.

But--since you claim to have special knowlege of US government operations---please, enlighten us as to your knowledge: which 5 agencies are *mandated* (by law) to approve any intelligence operation? Again, this isn't classified information. Anyone who's truly "in the know" could answer it.

[gatorev12]

Are you really trying to say that there's a certain protocol the U.S. government must follow, involving the participation of five different agencies, to plan and execute an *illegal* false flag intelligence operation?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm claiming.

Because--*gasp*!!!--government agencies are monitored. Including government intelligence agencies.

There's at least two independent (civilian) companies that monitor CIA/intelligence activities that are open-source and anyone in the public can access the identities of these companies.

No, I insist, you show us evidence of this alleged protocol that must be followed to carry out *illegal* covert operations, since you're the one claiming it exists.

Pics or it didn't happen!


I would think asking for open-source information would be pretty easy material for any person "in the know" to obtain. I'm not saying it's easy to find out, just that it's available to someone in the public.

But, of course, asking direct responses from trolls will never get a direct answer. The only thing you can keep doing is troll.

If I wanted to troll, I can simply say: "I know you were the only adult male without a kid at the Jonas brothers concert in Florida two years ago." PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!"

Amusingly, you wouldn't have anything to counter that statement. And I could sit here and claim you were a Jonas brother fanboy who liked hanging out at boy-band concerts with pre-teen girls--without you being able to contradict anything I say.

[ChartsandGrafs]

In addition to the US government, you also claim the media is 100% on board and that independent scientists who've reviewed the facts/evidence are also 100% on board.

All false.

It isn't *just* the US government who's to blame...it's the media and everyone else who supports the official narrative. Including independent scientists like the Popular Science folks who did an exhaustive review of the facts and the conspiracy theories out there and concluded that the official version is the correct version. Hasn't stopped asshat conspiracy theorists from claiming the Popular Science editors were "also in on the conspiracy."

LOL, Popular Mechanics' piece on WTC-7 has been repeatedly debunked.

Try again.

But--since you claim to have special knowlege of US government operations---please, enlighten us as to your knowledge: which 5 agencies are *mandated* (by law) to approve any intelligence operation? Again, this isn't classified information. Anyone who's truly "in the know" could answer it.

Where's your proof that the government needs to follow a five-agency protocol to carry out an illegal covert operation? LOL!

Pics or didn't happen!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm claiming.

Because--*gasp*!!!--government agencies are monitored. Including government intelligence agencies.

LOL! Total nonsense!

There's at least two independent (civilian) companies that monitor CIA/intelligence activities that are open-source and anyone in the public can access the identities of these companies.

How do you really know they are "independent"? Because they said so?

LOL!

But, of course, asking direct responses from trolls will never get a direct answer. The only thing you can keep doing is troll.

LOL, says the king of trolling.

You got nothing for me in this discussion. You're butter and I'm a hot knife. No challenge at all.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Popular Mechanics debunked on 9/11. Hilarious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAqN6y7nT4c

[gatorev12]

All false.


So...the media is telling the truth about 9-11? Including the thousands of media reports about 9-11 which stand in complete contradiction to what you're alleging?

Yes or no.


LOL, Popular Mechanics' piece on WTC-7 has been repeatedly debunked.


Even IF it's been de-bunked, the investigators from Popular Mechanics, at some level, would have been "in" on the conspiracy.

No matter which way you cut that cheese...any slice amounts to the Popular Mechanics people signing off on the govt-sponsored conspiracy and EVERYONE from the Popular Mechanics company to agree to bury the truth. After all, it only takes one cameraman to steal a copy of the "official script" to bury the entire thing.

Where's your proof that the government needs to follow a five-agency protocol to carry out an illegal covert operation? LOL!


I was rather hoping you'd respond with this.

Let me give you a practical example.

Say LSU fan wanders into Swamp Gas (the main Gator forum fyi--since you apparently never wander into there)...and claims he has "proof" Saban is a cheating scumbag. Says that ALL the media outlets are "in" on the conspiracy and helping Saban cover it up for ratings.

Say some poster asks: "oh yea hotshot? If you're so 'in the know' about Bama's program...name 5 four-star recruits that Saban developed into consensus All-Americans."

...and that person completely ignores the question and continues on with his rants?

Most people would assume the OP was a paranoid and delusional person. After all, the only thing the questioning person is asking for is OPEN-SOURCE information. As in: anyone who bothers to look it up can find out the answers to the question with the slightest bit of effort.

..but you never want to do that.

Again, because you were--and are--a troll. Period and end of story. Even if you disagree with what I'm saying, you can find out the answers to the questions I'm asking.

Pics or didn't happen!


PROVE ME WRONG that you aren't some Disney-obsessed 70 year old man going to Jonas brothers concerts by yourself amidst all the pre-teenaged little girls.

PICS OR IT ISN'T TRUE!!! Pervert. (and I say that in a mocking tone...not an insulting one).

[ChartsandGrafs]

Maybe Gatorev12 can tell us who, outside the highest levels of the U.S. government, monitors the CIA's covert operations, especially those of an *illegal* nature.

I won't hold breath on that, though! LOL!

[gatorev12]

LOL! Total nonsense!

How do you really know they are "independent"? Because they said so?

LOL!

LOL, says the king of trolling.

You got nothing for me in this discussion. You're butter and I'm a hot knife. No challenge at all.

...the extent of this post here is to repeat "LOL" three times and to prop up your own narcissist and attention-seeking ego.

...which is precisely why you were banned for trolling for almost a year. You've got nothing of substance to actually reply with.

I know, I know...your ban was "the government" trying to silence you. It wouldn't surprise me if you actually believed that.

Again...IF you really had any knowledge about the topic at hand, the information asked of you wouldn't take very much effort to acquire. Even if it's a lie, you'll be able to see what the "official" lie is. The only reason you'd refuse the request is because you aren't remotely interested in facts...you're only interested in trolling.

[ChartsandGrafs]

So...the media is telling the truth about 9-11? Including the thousands of media reports about 9-11 which stand in complete contradiction to what you're alleging?

How would the media know the truth about 9/11?

Even IF it's been de-bunked, the investigators from Popular Mechanics, at some level, would have been "in" on the conspiracy.

Really? You figure the CIA would call Popular Mechanics and tell them about a false flag operation they are planning?

LOL! You can't make this sort of buffoonery up!

No matter which way you cut that cheese...any slice amounts to the Popular Mechanics people signing off on the govt-sponsored conspiracy and EVERYONE from the Popular Mechanics company to agree to bury the truth. After all, it only takes one cameraman to steal a copy of the "official script" to bury the entire thing.

LOL. Or maybe they're just a bunch of mindless, pro-state troll government worshipers like you and can't report their way out of a paper bag?

How 'bout that?



I was rather hoping you'd respond with this.

Let me give you a practical example.

Say LSU fan wanders into Swamp Gas (the main Gator forum fyi--since you apparently never wander into there)...and claims he has "proof" Saban is a cheating scumbag. Says that ALL the media outlets are "in" on the conspiracy and helping Saban cover it up for ratings.

Say some poster asks: "oh yea hotshot? If you're so 'in the know' about Bama's program...name 5 four-star recruits that Saban developed into consensus All-Americans."

...and that person completely ignores the question and continues on with his rants?

Most people would assume the OP was a paranoid and delusional person. After all, the only thing the questioning person is asking for is OPEN-SOURCE information. As in: anyone who bothers to look it up can find out the answers to the question with the slightest bit of effort.

..but you never want to do that.

Again, because you were--and are--a troll. Period and end of story. Even if you disagree with what I'm saying, you can find out the answers to the questions I'm asking.

Stupid example is stupid.

PROVE ME WRONG that you aren't some Disney-obsessed 70 year old man going to Jonas brothers concerts by yourself amidst all the pre-teenaged little girls.

PICS OR IT ISN'T TRUE!!! Pervert. (and I say that in a mocking tone...not an insulting one).

So when might you be providing us evidence supporting the government's cockamamie 9/11 conspiracy theory? Or are we going to get more Swamp Gas analogies?

Tell me you don't actually charge people for your law services. Fraud is a crime, man.

[gatorev12]

Maybe Gatorev12 can tell us who, outside the highest levels of the U.S. government, monitors the CIA's covert operations, especially those of an *illegal* nature.

I won't hold breath on that, though! LOL!

Absolutely I can.

Can you??

Of course not. Because you can't even take 10 minutes out of your life to educate yourself on what the "official narrative" is.

Which only proves your true purpose...to troll.

[ChartsandGrafs]

...the extent of this post here is to repeat "LOL" three times and to prop up your own narcissist and attention-seeking ego.

...which is precisely why you were banned for trolling for almost a year. You've got nothing of substance to actually reply with.

I know, I know...your ban was "the government" trying to silence you. It wouldn't surprise me if you actually believed that.

Again...IF you really had any knowledge about the topic at hand, the information asked of you wouldn't take very much effort to acquire. Even if it's a lie, you'll be able to see what the "official" lie is. The only reason you'd refuse the request is because you aren't remotely interested in facts...you're only interested in trolling.

Where's your evidence that the government must follow a five-agency protocol to plan and execute *illegal* intelligence operations? If you're such a government troll know-it-all, why are you struggling to provide us with something?

Hmmm?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Absolutely I can.

Can you??

Of course not. Because you can't even take 10 minutes out of your life to educate yourself on what the "official narrative" is.

Which only proves your true purpose...to troll.

You can? Well when might that actually happen?

After you get laughed out of the thread?

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's good to see that you've got nothing for me but the "you're a troll" defense.

When did you develop this whiny persecution complex you've been displaying lately?

[gatorev12]

Where's your evidence that the government must follow a five-agency protocol to plan and execute *illegal* intelligence operations? If you're such a government troll know-it-all, why are you struggling to provide us with something?

Hmmm?

Why are you desperately trying to avoid looking it up?

Again, to use my earlier analogy, your position is rejecting looking up the OPEN SOURCE information that's readily available for anyone who wants to look it up.

Even IF it's a lie...why not prove to everyone you have the ability to look it up and respond?

Gain some credibility for a change.

...but you can't. You're too lazy and too much of a hypocrite to try. Because all you want to do is troll. It's what got you banned earlier and, apparently, what you haven't learned from.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Why are you desperately trying to avoid looking it up?

Again, to use my earlier analogy, your position is rejecting looking up the OPEN SOURCE information that's readily available for anyone who wants to look it up.

Even IF it's a lie...why not prove to everyone you have the ability to look it up and respond?

Gain some credibility for a change.

...but you can't. You're too lazy and too much of a hypocrite to try. Because all you want to do is troll. It's what got you banned earlier and, apparently, what you haven't learned from.

It's not my responsibility to prove your claim. You assert that this protocol exists. It's your responsibility to prove it, not mine.

Why would I spend any time going on a wild goose chase looking for something you cooked up in your imagination?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Here, Gatorev12, this is for you...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mGPeR5YPDfg/TeHV2KE7RLI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/hj--UI39cr0/s1600/strahovka.jpg

Grab onto it and hold on for dear life, because you're getting absolutely thrashed in this thread.

[gatorev12]

It's good to see that you've got nothing for me but the "you're a troll" defense.

When did you develop this whiny persecution complex you've been displaying lately?

It's a fact you were previously banned for trolling. Specifically for "adding nothing to this forum."

Why you're wanting to avoid direct questions, I have no idea. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Again, even IF it's a lie (as your worldview demands), it's a pretty easy lie to look up. So why not look it up? Why not prove you have the ability to undertake a 30 minute google investigation? Wow everyone with your internet skillz?

Could it be because you can't? Because you haven't the slightest ability to actually answer a direct question asked of you?

Scoff at the Swamp Gas analogy all you want...it's true. Anyone claiming Saban is cheating should--in theory--be able to name a few of the recruits he's brought in. The failure to name a single recruit is pretty much conclusive proof that the person in question is talking complete sh*t. Especially when that person can easily look up the information online.

[gatorev12]

Here, Gatorev12, this is for you...

Grab onto it and hold on for dear life, because you're getting absolutely thrashed in this thread.

Ah, yes...your inevitable claim to "winning."

We get it: you're a legend in your own mind. I'm actually not going to disagree with you that you're the best troll on this site. Your ability to ignore facts, reason, and direct questions of you (despite having ready-access to the information) is unparalleled.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's a fact you were previously banned for trolling. Specifically for "adding nothing to this forum."

Why you're wanting to avoid direct questions, I have no idea. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Again, even IF it's a lie (as your worldview demands), it's a pretty easy lie to look up. So why not look it up? Why not prove you have the ability to undertake a 30 minute google investigation? Wow everyone with your internet skillz?

Could it be because you can't? Because you haven't the slightest ability to actually answer a direct question asked of you?

Scoff at the Swamp Gas analogy all you want...it's true. Anyone claiming Saban is cheating should--in theory--be able to name a few of the recruits he's brought in. The failure to name a single recruit is pretty much conclusive proof that the person in question is talking complete sh*t. Especially when that person can easily look up the information online.

There's absolutely NO EVIDENCE for any five-agency protocol that the U.S. government must follow to carry out *illegal* intelligence operations. LOL. I mean, think about what you're saying here. It's completely absurd. It's like saying the sheriff's department must get approval from the mayor before it can rob the local bank. It's beyond stupid. It makes no sense at all.

Dude, what happened to you? Did you hit your head or something? This is not the Gatorev12 I remember.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Your ability to ignore facts, reason, and direct questions of you (despite having ready-access to the information) is unparalleled.

That's the problem. You don't ask me sensible questions, you ask me troll questions. Just look at this thread, for instance. You want me to find something on the internet that doesn't even exist. You want me to find a protocol that the U.S. government must legally follow to do something illegal! It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

Work with me here. I'm trying to keep you afloat in this thread. I'm trying to make it interesting, but you've got to give me something that isn't completely stupid to work with.

[gatorev12]

That's the problem. You don't ask me sensible questions, you ask me troll questions. Just look at this thread, for instance. You want me to find something on the internet that doesn't even exist. You want me to find a protocol that the U.S. government must legally follow to do something illegal! It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

Work with me here. I'm trying to keep you afloat in this thread. I'm trying to make it interesting, but you've got to give me something that isn't completely stupid to work with.

Glad you're accepting that you were previously banned for trolling. As such, you're probably the last person to actually claim any bit of credibility on this or other threads for being objective (or honest).

Nevertheless, I'm asking you a sensible question.

Set aside and forget your (unproven) illegal aspect of it. Assume that this is a legal government operation. What are the 5 agencies that are involved in every legal intelligence operation?

Prove your credibility for a change.

Look at any thread in Swamp Gas...or the recruiting forum...or the basketball forum...(since I never see you in any of these threads, I'm assuming you're looking at them for the first time)--and whenever a poster claims to assert some type of special knowledge (either having a connection to a player, recruit, or a coach)--someone asks them for proof.

Well, IF you're such an expert, you'll easily be able to repeat what the "official lie" is. It isn't hard to look up. Hell, I'll even give you a start: of the 5 agencies, the CIA and NSA are two of the five that send personnel to review any intelligence operation.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Glad you're accepting that you were previously banned for trolling. As such, you're probably the last person to actually claim any bit of credibility on this or other threads for being objective (or honest).

Not really, no.

Nevertheless, I'm asking you a sensible question.

That would be a neat trick.

I'd like to see it sometime.

Set aside and forget your (unproven) illegal aspect of it. Assume that this is a legal government operation. What are the 5 agencies that are involved in every legal intelligence operation?

Prove your credibility for a change.

Why would I assume that this would be a legal operation? That's not what this thread is about. We're discussing 9/11 in the context that it was a government false flag, which would obviously be illegal.

Look at any thread in Swamp Gas...or the recruiting forum...or the basketball forum...(since I never see you in any of these threads, I'm assuming you're looking at them for the first time)--and whenever a poster claims to assert some type of special knowledge (either having a connection to a player, recruit, or a coach)--someone asks them for proof.

Well, IF you're such an expert, you'll easily be able to repeat what the "official lie" is. It isn't hard to look up. Hell, I'll even give you a start: of the 5 agencies, the CIA and NSA are two of the five that send personnel to review any intelligence operation.

Sorry, but I'm not going to help you engage in a blatant ad hominem logical fallacy. The validity of a person's argument is independent of their expertise in a given field. You're supposed to attack the argument, not the person. If my arguments with regard to 9/11 are wrong, show me how. Persuade me with logic and reason.

I think we both know why you can't do that.

[cocodrilo]

When people want evidence of government foreknowledge (at the least, letting it happen) on 9/11, they really need look no further than the concerted inaction of the men at the top of the U.S. defense command, meaning Bush, Rumsfeld (along with his deputy Wolfowitz and the officer in charge at the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center), and the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The VP was the only one who actually did something during the attacks, and what he was doing was virtually participating in the attacks per the eyewitness account of the Secretary of Transportation, whose testimony the 9/11 Commission had no choice but to ignore.

I actually give Bush the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think that conspirators would let a person that stupid in on the plot. The Bush audio I posted is exactly the kind of thing this dolt could be expected to say in public if he had indeed been given the privilege of watching the first WTC hit live on closed circuit. Bush was a puppet and a useful idiot in the cover-up, dragging his feet on appointing a commission for as long as he could, and then (no one could make this up) trying to appoint Henry Kissinger to head it. I’m sure it was also not Bush’s decision to sit around the Sarasota schoolhouse for half an hour after it was known that America was under attack and his whereabouts as a potential prime target were known. That’s on the Secret Service, presumably under orders from someone who somehow knew that Bush and the school kids and teachers were not in the slightest bit of danger. Just keep Bush there doing nothing for as long as you can.

But what about our other defense “leaders”? There’s the rub. The Secretary of Defense, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the chief operating officer at the NMCC in the Pentagon all went into hiding during the attacks (the secretary holed up in his office listening to his daily CIA briefing like nothing was happening while his subordinates tried to get a handle on things, then going outside the building after the Pentagon itself was hit so that he couldn’t be found by those same subordinates), the Acting Chairman holed up with Senator Max Cleland on Capitol Hill to chat about his confirmation, not to be disturbed by anything as distracting as an attack on America, and the location of the NMCC chief operating officer unknown, while simultaneously the Commander in Chief hid in plain sight and while lies have been told about the location and activity of Cheney. Does anyone have a theory? I'm sure it will have to do with staggering coincidence and/or incompetence. Couldn't be anything else, like guilty knowledge of what was happening and the need to avoid interfering, commenting, or doing anything else until all was accomplished. So when the attacks were all over, these leaders just happened to come out of their holes to suddenly assume their duties.

It is telling that the 9/11 Commission didn't have the guts to ask Rumsfeld or General Myers to explain their behavior, even though the Family Steering Committee specifically requested that the commission ask Rumsfeld and Myers to explain themselves. Myers openly committed perjury right in the middle of his confirmation hearing testimony a few days after the attacks, and was rewarded for his lying with unanimous confirmation. It is also worth noting that his fellow military brass told so many lies during the 9/11 hearings that the commission considered having them indicted for perjury. But of course the commission didn't have the guts to do that either.

Since Gatorev12 will accuse me of making this all up, here are a couple of links on the whole sickening story.

http://hobrad.angelfire.com/richard.html (see footnotes on Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the NMCC’s Winfield)

http://hobrad.angelfire.com/united.html (instructive for the lies and deceit of the U.S. military)

[gatorev12]

Not really, no.


LOL...I honestly don't know why you'd attempt to lie about that. Everyone could see who was banned and for what when GC adopted that policy for awhile. You were on that list.

Denying this is denying reality. Which we all know you're good at--but kinda destroys any credibility you might be trying to gain.

Why would I assume that this would be a legal operation? That's not what this thread is about. We're discussing 9/11 in the context that it was a government false flag, which would obviously be illegal.


So it's your contention that EVERY false-flag operation is illegal?? Got any proof for that?

Why do all 5 agencies need to be involved? It's the government. Protocols *have* to exist for everything and anything. But on a more practical level, the intelligence agencies are specialized and pool resources in order to gain expertise. The CIA defers to the NSA in terms of communication and cryptologic intelligence.

Sorry, but I'm not going to help you engage in a blatant ad hominem logical fallacy. The validity of a person's argument is independent of their expertise in a given field. You're supposed to attack the argument, not the person. If my arguments with regard to 9/11 are wrong, show me how.


That's exactly what I'm doing: I'm calling you out for your complete and utter lack of knowledge on the topic at hand.

IF you have the slightest bit of credibility, then look up which 5 agencies participate in the planning of an intelligence operation. It's a simple task. Since you can't prove it was an illegal operation vis a vis a legal one that followed normal protocols, then answer the question.

If you don't know, then admit you don't know or were unable to look it up.

Persuade me with logic and reason.

I think we both know why you can't do that.

For once, we agree. I can't persuade you with logic or reason--because you'll just ignore everything I have to say. You'll ignore facts, concrete evidence from independent (re: non-government) sources. You'll change arguments mid-argument (the media is in on it!! ...no! why would the media must be in on it?!).

I know that perception is reality...but what happens when that reality is delusional?

[ChartsandGrafs]

LOL...I honestly don't know why you'd attempt to lie about that. Everyone could see who was banned and for what when GC adopted that policy for awhile. You were on that list.

Denying this is denying reality. Which we all know you're good at--but kinda destroys any credibility you might be trying to gain.

Well, I guess I should take into account your tendency to be gullible and trusting. If an authority figure says something, you believe it without question.

So it's your contention that EVERY false-flag operation is illegal?? Got any proof for that?

Straw man alert!

We're talking about 9/11 as a false flag, which would be illegal.

Why do all 5 agencies need to be involved? It's the government. Protocols *have* to exist for everything and anything. But on a more practical level, the intelligence agencies are specialized and pool resources in order to gain expertise. The CIA defers to the NSA in terms of communication and cryptologic intelligence.

LOL, you don't seem to get it. There are no protocols in place for the government to do *illegal* things, because that would obviously be *illegal*, and if it's *illegal*, there's no need to follow rules and protocols in the first place.

You can't possibly be this thick, can you? Tell me your display here is just a joke, please.

That's exactly what I'm doing: I'm calling you out for your complete and utter lack of knowledge on the topic at hand.

LOL, says the guy who asserts that the U.S. government must follow a certain legal protocol every time it wants to do something illegal!

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

IF you have the slightest bit of credibility, then look up which 5 agencies participate in the planning of an intelligence operation. It's a simple task. Since you can't prove it was an illegal operation vis a vis a legal one that followed normal protocols, then answer the question.

If you don't know, then admit you don't know or were unable to look it up.

Nope! It's your claim, so you provide the evidence. Show me this legal protocol that has been set up to allow the U.S. government to illegally execute false flag attacks while murdering American citizens.

Pics or didn't happen!

For once, we agree. I can't persuade you with logic or reason--because you'll just ignore everything I have to say.

You don't have anything to say. Just admit it. You've got nothing in this discussion other than flak.

"But, but, but... the government couldn't do that, they just couldn't!"

You'll ignore facts, concrete evidence from independent (re: non-government) sources.

LOL, you have no concrete evidence. Absolutely none. The government explanation for 9/11 doesn't even require concrete evidence. It's true because they say so.

I know that perception is reality...but what happens when that reality is delusional?

No, perception isn't necessarily reality. If you can't even get that part right, how would you ever be able to distinguish between your personal delusion and objective reality? You wouldn't, and that's why your reality is created by whatever the government tells you.

[ChartsandGrafs]

When people want evidence of government foreknowledge (at the least, letting it happen) on 9/11, they really need look no further than the concerted inaction of the men at the top of the U.S. defense command, meaning Bush, Rumsfeld (along with his deputy Wolfowitz and the officer in charge at the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center), and the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The VP was the only one who actually did something during the attacks, and what he was doing was virtually participating in the attacks per the eyewitness account of the Secretary of Transportation, whose testimony the 9/11 Commission had no choice but to ignore.

I actually give Bush the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think that conspirators would let a person that stupid in on the plot. The Bush audio I posted is exactly the kind of thing this dolt could be expected to say in public if he had indeed been given the privilege of watching the first WTC hit live on closed circuit. Bush was a puppet and a useful idiot in the cover-up, dragging his feet on appointing a commission for as long as he could, and then (no one could make this up) trying to appoint Henry Kissinger to head it. I’m sure it was also not Bush’s decision to sit around the Sarasota schoolhouse for half an hour after it was known that America was under attack and his whereabouts as a potential prime target were known. That’s on the Secret Service, presumably under orders from someone who somehow knew that Bush and the school kids and teachers were not in the slightest bit of danger. Just keep Bush there doing nothing for as long as you can.

But what about our other defense “leaders”? There’s the rub. The Secretary of Defense, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the chief operating officer at the NMCC in the Pentagon all went into hiding during the attacks (the secretary holed up in his office listening to his daily CIA briefing like nothing was happening while his subordinates tried to get a handle on things, then going outside the building after the Pentagon itself was hit so that he couldn’t be found by those same subordinates), the Acting Chairman holed up with Senator Max Cleland on Capitol Hill to chat about his confirmation, not to be disturbed by anything as distracting as an attack on America, and the location of the NMCC chief operating officer unknown, while simultaneously the Commander in Chief hid in plain sight and while lies have been told about the location and activity of Cheney. Does anyone have a theory? I'm sure it will have to do with staggering coincidence and/or incompetence. Couldn't be anything else, like guilty knowledge of what was happening and the need to avoid interfering, commenting, or doing anything else until all was accomplished. So when the attacks were all over, these leaders just happened to come out of their holes to suddenly assume their duties.

It is telling that the 9/11 Commission didn't have the guts to ask Rumsfeld or General Myers to explain their behavior, even though the Family Steering Committee specifically requested that the commission ask Rumsfeld and Myers to explain themselves. Myers openly committed perjury right in the middle of his confirmation hearing testimony a few days after the attacks, and was rewarded for his lying with unanimous confirmation. It is also worth noting that his fellow military brass told so many lies during the 9/11 hearings that the commission considered having them indicted for perjury. But of course the commission didn't have the guts to do that either.

Since Gatorev12 will accuse me of making this all up, here are a couple of links on the whole sickening story.

http://hobrad.angelfire.com/richard.html (see footnotes on Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the NMCC’s Winfield)

http://hobrad.angelfire.com/united.html (instructive for the lies and deceit of the U.S. military)

Coco, if you get some free time, sit down and watch this documentary. This guy does excellent research, and he utterly demolishes the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Even if you think you've heard it all before, watch it. He adds some new information and fills in a few of the missing puzzle pieces. Good stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSifMddGf8&list=UUOwjv1ULeJXc06OMrQLmYFQ&index=1

[gatorev12]

Since you still can't answer any substantive questions and are laughably denying reality by not admitting to being banned for months, I can only conclude that you're still wanting to troll. Which is fine.

But so long as you're wanting to talk the nonsensical, I've found more pictures of you at the Jonas Brothers concert. You're not hard to spot:

http://www.mjsbigblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/taylor_jonas.JPG

[ChartsandGrafs]

Since you still can't answer any substantive questions.

LULZ.

A Gatorev12 "substantive" question:

"What are the five agencies the U.S. government must legally go through to do something illegal?"

Response:

"LOLOLOLOLOL! Child done got left behind!"