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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!!!!
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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!"
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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:
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:
Linear Mode
