9/11 Fact and Coverup Megathread

Talk about anything South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

OnagiPowa
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:04 am

Postby OnagiPowa » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:50 am

MarkyX, what the hell are you doing, this is SEC. 5 territory, go back to Colbert Report forums our I’ll have to inform your superiors of this jurisdiction violation.
DHS2020
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:00 am

Postby DHS2020 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:57 am

AREK wrote:
So, say this doesn't prove they were Saudi. Your evidence that they were [pick a race] is what? (since passports aren't good enough, I assume you can come up with something better than that)


This former navy guy's foia request says no arabs on flight 77
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm



retarded?
DHS2020
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:00 am

Postby DHS2020 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:01 am

Another Clueless Idiot

Image

Sibel D. Edmonds – Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI. Witness before the 9/11 Commission.

Letter to 9/11 Commission: "I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations."

http://www.justacitizen.org

http://www.youtube.com/v/10Jn4vTGb_8





This guy has bigger things to worry about than 16 year old boys' penises.

Image

sh*t in the urinal so you don't miss recess.

Get it?
Last edited by DHS2020 on Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 am, edited 5 times in total.
OnagiPowa
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:04 am

Postby OnagiPowa » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:01 am

AREK wrote:
I don't see why 9/11 needs to be debated anymore. Larry Silverstein admitted he blew up Tower 7, that's all you need to know!


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

EDIT:

Here, I particularly liked this one:

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?



Yea I’m sure that website’s right... it’s much more plausible that they used actual steel cables to literally “pull” down a building other than controlled demolition, who cares all the videos showed squibs and a crimp in the center of the structure when you’ve got a picture of 2 straight lines in a photo, I mean a video can be faked but photos are always more reliable evidence because you cant fake those.

Nice diversion, you should have been to ground zero last month:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... idejob.htm
zhang85
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:18 am

Postby zhang85 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:03 am

we want oil, so instead of any conflict--why not just lift the embargo?


Iraqi oil isn't enough to sustain us by itself, so simply lifting the embargo would not solve all of our problems. We wanted a pipeline in the Caspian to access $6 Trillion of oil, control a strategic region, keep the Dollar the currency of transaction as opposed to the Euro, and break the OPEC cartel if need be. Afghanistan was of primary importance, and Iraq was secondary. Plus, don't you also see the benefits of getting rid of an unstable anti-US regime and just taking its oil when there will already be a necessary conflict nearby? Kill two birds with one stone.

Zhang, is that what you call Iraq right now?

You think

1. We completely control Iraq

2. It has done wonders for us in the Middle East

Because I think even most of the 9/11 guys on this site would argue with that (by all means, though, guys-correct me if I'm wrong)


What we wanted is not what we got, but that doesn't change the fact that we invaded thinking we could completely control the country and tap its "wonders". If we didn't believe in our success, we wouldn't have gone in there in the first place.

So if they wanted to go around pillaging and stealing oil, they could.

Cool, where's the evidence they've done it?


It's financial mostly, and I'm sure you've read the reports about the "lost money" coming from the fund to rebuild Iraq and such. I forgot the mention that any company involved in the reconstruction is protected under that order as well. Right now that reconstruction fund is feeding the corporations, and I'm sure there's plenty of "pillaging" going on. I'm not exactly following those stories so I wouldn't know what the corporations have been up to lately, but intuition tells me that given free reign, corporations will not act for humanitarian purposes. I'm sure that whatever they're doing, it's discrete.
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:05 am

Do you honestly think citing a doctor who used to work for Navy as definitive evidence is going to mean something to me in this?

I can cite the Saudi embassy, the FBI, the CIA, etc. and you can cite a doctor who used to work for the Navy. I honestly don't want to be a dick, but after reading this far into the thread, you really think that's going to mean something?

There are 2-3 million people in the armed forces at any one time. As much I admire the guys, there are bound to be a few conspiracy guys in there. Remember CBS/Bush/Rather memos? I trust the link about as much as I trusted the guy who came forward with 1972 Air Force docs that were somehow created using Microsoft Word. The Air Force can have one of these guys, so can the Navy.
Last edited by AREK on Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
zhang85
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:18 am

Postby zhang85 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:08 am

Ahh, 911myths.com AREK? An inevitable link in any 9/11 discussion. It's a good site that I think benefits all conspiracy theorists by trimming down the garbage theories. The author makes some good points, but he's lazy and unconvincing in others. I had a good debate with the guy last year.
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:08 am

"Yea I’m sure that website’s right... it’s much more plausible that they used actual steel cables to literally “pull” down a building other than controlled demolition, who cares all the videos showed squibs and a crimp in the center of the structure when you’ve got a picture of 2 straight lines in a photo, I mean a video can be faked but photos are always more reliable evidence because you cant fake those."


My favorite plausibility argument is the idea the entire New York Fire Department is lying to you about their practices even though it means covering up the deaths of a few hundred of the people they worked with. Not one guy's squeaking. Obviously people who put their lives on the line on a daily basis are too gutless to admit the truth to you.
DHS2020
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:00 am

Postby DHS2020 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:16 am

AREK wrote:Do you honestly think citing a doctor who used to work for Navy as definitive evidence is going to mean something to me in this?

I can cite the Saudi embassy, the FBI, the CIA, etc. and you can cite a doctor who used to work for the Navy. I honestly don't want to be a dick, but after reading this far into the thread, you really think that's going to mean something?

There are 2-3 million people in the armed forces at any one time. As much I admire the guys, there are bound to be a few conspiracy guys in there. Remember CBS/Bush/Rather memos? I trust the link about as much as I trusted the guy who came forward with 1972 Air Force docs that were somehow created using Microsoft Word. The Air Force can have one of these guys, so can the Navy.



It's a freedom of information act request, it's not the holder of the foia request, its the i in foia that is provided.

But i'm not a "no 77 at pentagon" guy, i'm just saying that's what is out there.

i'm more of an isi/mossad drug trading insider kinda guy.

but don't tell anyone ;-)
zhang85
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:18 am

Postby zhang85 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:18 am

You know AREK, something just came to me about the Iraq embargo. As the "moral leader of the free world", it's a terrible political move to deal with a man who committed genocide against the Kurds using chemical weapons. We've been criticised for arming him in the past, we fought him in the Gulf War, and we can't just start to trade with the bastard without serious repercussions. That embargo was necessary, but an invasion could cure all that...
DHS2020
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:00 am

Postby DHS2020 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:19 am

homerjjesse wrote:I agree with what zhang 85 said.

The US were behind the attacks, not because this administration is evil, but because we simply need the oil to keep Americans happy.

I won't argue any specifics, believe what you want. Everyone, including me and the writers, are too arrogant to have an open mind about this. There's really no point in going over the details, no one is going to completely switch opinions 5 years after the incident happened.

I thought Matt and Trey were smart enough to figure out that there's really no reason for any Muslim group to attack the US when all that does is invoke the wrath of the entire world against their cause. I sort of feel like they were lying about what they really think in this episode.

I feel like proposing another conspiracy... about south park, about how Trey and Matt write controversial things they don't believe in to get ratings, and therefore more money. You know, they need money if they want to keep snorting coke out of hookers asses. I wouldn't put this theory past them.

Besides, how much more difficult would the show have been if they wrote it from the completely opposite perspective; that Bush did plan out 9/11? It'd be a terrible mess to watch, and they'd get hung by their balls for it, if it would even be allowed to air.



This, from the station that brought you "That's my Bush" in 2001.
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:21 am

Iraqi oil isn't enough to sustain us by itself, so simply lifting the embargo would not solve all of our problems. We wanted a pipeline in the Caspian to access $6 Trillion of oil, control a strategic region, keep the Dollar the currency of transaction as opposed to the Euro, and break the OPEC cartel if need be. Afghanistan was of primary importance, and Iraq was secondary. Plus, don't you also see the benefits of getting rid of an unstable anti-US regime and just taking its oil when there will already be a necessary conflict nearby? Kill two birds with one stone.


I see the benefits of getting rid of an unstable regime. That's one reason I argued for the war. Argue that, I'll agree with you.

Right now, we're talking about oil, though. We can go to war with Afghanistan and lift the embargo. Hell, we can lift the embargo and let Afghanistan in on the whole thing, saves us hundreds of billions of dollars--why not? (the GDP of Iraq $90 billion, so even if we're stealing every last cent, this venture's losing money)

What we wanted is not what we got, but that doesn't change the fact that we invaded thinking we could completely control the country and tap its "wonders". If we didn't believe in our success, we wouldn't have gone in there in the first place.


I'm sure this works as an explanation for you and a bunch of people here. To me it just seems like circular reasoning. I don't we're going to see eye to eye on this one.

It's financial mostly, and I'm sure you've read the reports about the "lost money" coming from the fund to rebuild Iraq and such.


Yes, I have. I haven't read anything about companies stealing oil and don't see how those stories show it.

I'm sure there's plenty of "pillaging" going on. I'm not exactly following those stories so I wouldn't know what the corporations have been up to lately, but intuition tells me that given free reign, corporations will not act for humanitarian purposes. I'm sure that whatever they're doing, it's discrete.


I do follow them and I don't remember any. But that's what I think this all comes down to, a bunch of people have it in their mind that this is how the United States and corporation always operate and so, that's what must be going on--whether there are any stories saying that's happening or not.
Last edited by AREK on Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
DHS2020
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:00 am

Postby DHS2020 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:21 am

Image


and who said anything about "winning" in Iraq.

This is about occupation.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf

Mission Accomplished.
Last edited by DHS2020 on Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
OnagiPowa
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:04 am

Postby OnagiPowa » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:21 am

AREK wrote:
"Yea I’m sure that website’s right... it’s much more plausible that they used actual steel cables to literally “pull” down a building other than controlled demolition, who cares all the videos showed squibs and a crimp in the center of the structure when you’ve got a picture of 2 straight lines in a photo, I mean a video can be faked but photos are always more reliable evidence because you cant fake those."


My favorite plausibility argument is the idea the entire New York Fire Department is lying to you about their practices even though it means covering up the deaths of a few hundred of the people they worked with. Not one guy's squeaking. Obviously people who put their lives on the line on a daily basis are too gutless to admit the truth to you.


Your response to my statement (by diverging from the point I was trying to make into which was more implausible IE the building being LITERALLY pulled down or demolished) proves more to everyone that you’re a disinfo agent than anything I could ever say about you. Don’t make this so easy I like MarkyX because he actually puts forth some effort like the stuff he does on Colbert Report forums. That stuff is disinfo GOLD compared to your rational. I also like how in your response you deleted my link that shows not only the NYCFD wasn’t involved but the majority of them (and NYPD) believe it was a cover up. But I’m sure their quotes were taken out of context... just like Siverstien, right?
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:25 am

As the "moral leader of the free world", it's a terrible political move to deal with a man who committed genocide against the Kurds using chemical weapons. We've been criticised for arming him in the past, we fought him in the Gulf War, and we can't just start to trade with the bastard without serious repercussions. That embargo was necessary, but an invasion could cure all that...


The government (according to this) is willing to kill 3,000 people on 9/11. Rape Iraq. Steal its oil. And frame somebody else. I don't think it'd be that worried about dealing with Saddam Hussein. It sure didn't stop the French or the Russians.
Last edited by AREK on Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “General South Park Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests