EPTBush may have ordered CIA to forge documents linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq.
fuck you, closeminded people - Page 7
| Blogs > Deleted User 3420 |
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
Bush may have ordered CIA to forge documents linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq. | ||
|
UnitarySpace
United States61 Posts
| ||
|
UnitarySpace
United States61 Posts
09-11-01 THIS IS NEXT TAKE PENACILIN NOW DEATH TO AMERICA DEATH TO ISRAEL ALLAH IS GREAT #2 09-11-01 YOU CAN NOT STOP US. WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX. YOU DIE NOW. ARE YOU AFRAID? DEATH TO AMERICA. DEATH TO ISRAEL. ALLAH IS GREAT. I read an article on these notes a few years ago. These notes were written by him in order mislead the investigation. They did some sort of linguistic and handwriting analysis etc. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5102 Posts
On August 07 2008 03:49 UnitarySpace wrote: Certainly nothing is impossible, but I don't see how these anthrax attacks were related to 9/11. It seems to be the case of a disgruntled/crazy government employee, not a mass government conspiracy. Mathematically, the probability of the government covering up a large conspiracy is very low. I don't see why. There have been cases where a witness refuses to testify because the criminal threatened him or his family. There have been cases where rape victims refuse to testify for the above reasons or because they don't think anyone would believe them or because they would feel shame. There have been cases where victims refuse to testify because the suspect is a friend/family member and they will not betray them. There have been cases where victims refuse to testify because they do not want to reveal that they committed despicable actions. Imo the majority of people who would have witnessed evidence and are brave enough to testify would be 'grunts', people who would be dismissed out of hand because they lack a venerable enough position in society. They'd be labeled as 'a loonie', 'out to get a book deal', 'unqualified'. Imo those witnesses that have reached a high enough position to actually be listened to, would have to have been so intensely loyal to have reached that position that they would feel honor bound to the president to keep the secret. Or they would subscribe to one of the above situations, fearing for their familys well being etc. They may see others go forward to speak out and see how they get thrown under the bus and ridiculed, and feel like there's no point in taking such a big risk just to get marginalized. Also it's not like credible people aren't speaking out... http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://www.stj911.org/ | ||
|
UnitarySpace
United States61 Posts
| ||
|
a-game
Canada5102 Posts
| ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
| ||
|
UnitarySpace
United States61 Posts
Also, people who claim to have "scientific" evidence for the 9/11 attacks should try to get their views published in a refereed journal. This is how these things are done in science. Unless of course there is some massive conspiracy in academia. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5102 Posts
but still if there's a bunch of fishy stuff about it, let's say it's proven one day that the towers were brought down by demolition, you'd have to just accept that evidence despite it being quizzical as to how they got the damn bombs in there in the first place. EDIT: On August 07 2008 06:27 UnitarySpace wrote: this is how these things are done in science. Unless of course there is some massive conspiracy in academia. This raises a question: do you believe in man-made climate change? | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
The difference between theorists and non-theorists is simply whether or not they believe this simple maxim: "The system can be trusted to produce meritable evidence." There's a need for this maxim because evidence can be so easily presented as meritable. Give me enough time and I can put together a plausible and persuasive case that the world is flat, based on 'expert testimony'. I know this because I argue shit I don't believe all the time in debate, and I win because I can do it credibly. Naturally, this has made me skeptical of any kind of argument, because I know it's so easy to argue anything and make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about. Case in point: Conspiracy theories. I have avoided debating the *evidence* in this thread as much as possible because as I have pointed out before it isn't about who is right or wrong; it's about who do you choose to believe, and why. Anybody can construct a credible sounding case for anything. You'll always be able to find people who will testify on your behalf. Trial lawyers depend on this fact. But you need to believe in something. So what matters is who you trust: I choose to trust in the "system": the 'mainstream media', credentialed scientists, investigative committees. Simply put, the idea that the average joe can objectively determine the truth through research is plain wrong. The information he finds needs to be vetted by someone with expert understanding to weed out the hacks. There is a system and a process the scientific community has developed over centuries to do just this. Of all things, science is the easiest to con people on. That's because scientific results rarely meet intuitive expectations. To really be able to judge the merit of scientific results, you have to be an expert in that field. Another example: "perpetual motion machines". My experience studying physics has convinced me that at least on the scale that we are able to construct machines today, they are impossible. And yet there are many people without scientific training who could probably be persuaded easily that a law defying the laws of physics is possible. Another case in point: Steorn The system works by having credentialed people vet what counts as scientific "truth". You know, academia. This system can be trusted because it is self correcting. Unusual results gets vetted by other scientists. If the results can be repeated, then the ideas that test was verifying can be counted as "true", regardless of its political alignment. If a finding about 9/11 or global warming hasn't been accepted widely by academics, it's because the methods were flawed, not because the scientists are biased. Scientific truth is the best kind of inducted truth, because it is grounded in experiment. Which is not to say the system's perfect. But I have seen no good evidence the system is corrupt that isn't circumstantial. To distrust in the system just because you're cynical and you don't trust results that violate your intuitive expectations is ludicrous. The world rarely behaves like you'd expect it to. Our intuitions are built upon our experiences with the materials and environments we spend the most time around. We take the observations we make there and analogize them onto other things. Sometimes this is appropriate. Other times, like when we judge how big a hole a plane should leave in a building, it's not. That's when we have to trust science, and what credentialed people consider to be scientific fact. there i wrote a lot of shit. like ten people will read this at best, but whatever. i made my point (about conspiracies) sidenote: holy shit this thread has generated like a page of PMs from various people. | ||
|
MaZza[KIS]
Australia2110 Posts
On August 04 2008 06:29 Chill wrote: The government can't keep the president getting his cock sucked a secret; you think they could keep genocide a secret? There's an old proverb amongst gangsters "nobody dies or goes to jail unless they want to" Bill Clinton did something to someone or opposed the wrong person... I'm sure they had more on Clinton then just a blowjob.. in fact, if you research his presidential campaign and his presidency there's a lot of shady stuff that comes out. Believe me, nothing comes out unless someone wants it to. Don't be naive enough to think that people in the government are "idiots". In fact, it's not even people in the government. It's people who've earned enough money to have some powerful influences in the world. People like this are not idiots. They're very tactful in the art of people management. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 07 2008 06:02 UnitarySpace wrote: Large conspiracies are mathematically improbable. The more people involved, the more likely somebody is to snitch, for lack of a better word. mathematically improbably doesn't mean anything "in a world of infinite possibilities, everything is a coincidence" -me (I don't want to discuss 9/11 anymore for a while, I just wanted to post that quote cuz I think it's cool) | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
Well, I have two engineering degrees and am months away from a PhD in physics and, I agree, science is easy to fool people with. On the other hand, as a somewhat competent scientist myself, and generally knowledgeable about the industries and protocols of aviation and civil engineering, I would have to say that, unlike the fairy tales spun by the likes of Steorn and other obvious crackpots, a good number of the arguments presented in the 9/11 case are very much based on logical and justifiable scientific principles. It's difficult to say that there is a conclusive case one way or the other, but the oddities in the circumstances of the events are certainly, in my opinion, of such gravity that they leave open very, very disturbing possibilities about what actually happened. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On August 04 2008 10:48 Boblion wrote: American people thought that Iraq had connections with terrorists and now they think that 9/11 was planned by their own government, this is hilarious. A conspiracy isnt needed to manipulate ignorant and retarded people. If people are so stupid that they believe Fox news crap they will also believe those retarded conspiracy theories later. Maybe it is just too hard to admit that nobody in the US was enought smart and honest to say the truth in 2001 - 2002: Saddam had no connection with terrorists period. Now people find excuses for their mistakes and their own stupidity " zomfg it was a conspiracy ! governement lied ! 9/11 was planned ! " Every American journalist active during this period should be put in jail because they cant use mental retardation as an excuse. The people who said it was a conspiracy (btw, have not seen any one say that in this thread, only that it was possible) are not at all the same people who said Iraq had to do with 9/11, or the faux news watchers. There is ample reason to be suspicious. Though I really don't think it makes a difference whether it was planned by the Bush administration or a different group of terrorists. It's not like that would make Bush any worse than he is now. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 07 2008 01:07 jgad wrote: From the news yesterday : Bush may have ordered CIA to forge documents linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq. It's tough to continue playing devil's advocate when someone like Suskind is making the claim. Although if anything does come of this, I can't wait for all the "I told you so" morons to start popping up, even though they had zero legitimate proof until Suskind came along. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On August 07 2008 21:54 Jibba wrote: It's tough to continue playing devil's advocate when someone like Suskind is making the claim. Although if anything does come of this, I can't wait for all the "I told you so" morons to start popping up, even though they had zero legitimate proof until Suskind came along. I'm not sure how this is new? How is it different from things like how Richard Clarke was ordered to connect 9/11 to Iraq, we've had that out since... 2002? And the way all of the evidence for the case to go to war has been so thoroughly trashed it is pretty obvious to most people that they made up reasons to go to Iraq. If they found official forgeries that is just confirming something that has been pretty damn obvious. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xRYHQVkQJ7U On August 07 2008 22:08 Jibba wrote: Dick Clarke was also the guy who had us bomb the medicine factory in Sudan. No idea what you're talking about or what your point is ~.~ The point of my mentioning Clarke is he gave a literal account of Bush telling him to connect 9/11 to Iraq. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
""The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. " If that doesn't sound like grasping for straws then I don't know what does. Suskind, I assume, has a much better case presented. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On August 07 2008 22:17 Jibba wrote: No, he gave an interpretation that Bush tried to tell him to connect Iraq. ""The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. " If that doesn't sound like grasping for straws then I don't know what does. Suskind, I assume, has a much better case presented. And, "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. "I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.' "He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report." Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.' "I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer." And that's not all, but I'm hoping to avoid going further into this. | ||
| ||
