View Full Version : 911 conspircay theory
http://propagandamatrix.com/us_agents_told_to_backoff.html
http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html
basically the administration insituted a hands off policy of saudis and others and issued visas to known terrorists.
i dont see how u can argue with this.
of course the opinion part may be its just a mistake, or it was just business, or whatever.
in any case easy to see why no investigation into 911, since all this 'dirty laundry' would come out and at the very least make bush look real bad.
---
put another way though, if theres nothing to hide, why is there a cover up? (congressmen and senators have said this, but its easy to call that 'just politics' i guess. (even though some have been republians ) )
adios
09-03-2003, 01:00 PM
Boris
09-03-2003, 01:27 PM
I don't know Tom. Why don't you point some of them out?
well guys like greg palast interviewed the saudi embassy guy and he said he was told to issued visas over his objection (his job was to vet visa applicants).
fbi agents have come out and publicly stated they werent allowed to invesigate saudis.
and then paper trail w199i or whatever that is in palast's book.
----
assuming you mean these are all lies?
btw many public offials like congressmen asked these questions but the most vocal were not relected. (eg, mckinney)
but the main point is that wakeupcall posted a webpage with this exact information and used it as an aexample of absurd conspiracy theory.
so his position is that all of this is completely ludicrous and only a nut would give it any credence.
my position is that this is something that should be looked into if for no other reason than if things are so screwed up they ought to get fixed.
which brings up point of why not even a whitewash 911 investigation was done. i mean, at least the warren commission put on a show for the public. where's our show?
B-Man
09-03-2003, 02:17 PM
what does that have to do with anything?
obviouysly we have satellites in orbit thats very close to being demonstrable to an individual in a very simple way.
read the chinese are sending something to moon maybe theyll photo US flag there and thatll prove that /images/graemlins/smile.gif
why are u and wakeupcall bringing up ufo crap and mixing it with this?
the webpage wakeupcall posted had absolutely no ufo or any other wierd stuff.
p.s. bruce, i believe that the logical term for your post is 'straw man' or perhaps ad hominem, since youre implying im an idiot. so much for your supermathman /images/graemlins/smile.gif
BruceZ
09-03-2003, 03:01 PM
p.s. bruce, i believe that the logical term for your post is 'straw man' or perhaps ad hominem, since youre implying im an idiot.
Huh, what? I never said anything about you. I can't even recall anything about you, except that you're liberal I think.
so you agree it was a straw man then, huh? /images/graemlins/smile.gif
lol
BruceZ
09-03-2003, 03:24 PM
I'm afraid I don't know what you're refering to. Let me try to guess and risk letting you draw me out. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif A straw man is an opponent who is setup to be easily defeated, and an ad hominem argument is one based on prejudice and emotion rather than reason. If you are refering to some comments I made about certain liberals on this page, that concerned the faulty logic, invalid or unstated premises, and/or values different from my own which these particular posters demonstrate, not all liberals in general. In certain posts I did not justify these statements by reason, or justify my own positions by reason. I do that elsewhere on an ongoing basis.
Wake up CALL
09-03-2003, 03:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
http://propagandamatrix.com/us_agents_told_to_backoff.html
http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html
basically the administration insituted a hands off policy of saudis and others and issued visas to known terrorists.
i dont see how u can argue with this.
of course the opinion part may be its just a mistake, or it was just business, or whatever.
in any case easy to see why no investigation into 911, since all this 'dirty laundry' would come out and at the very least make bush look real bad.
---
put another way though, if theres nothing to hide, why is there a cover up? (congressmen and senators have said this, but its easy to call that 'just politics' i guess. (even though some have been republians ) )
[/ QUOTE ]
Poor, poor brad, I thought perhaps you were to bright to fall for those links. Alas it is easy to be disappointed these days.
Your first link attributes "unnamed FBI" agents as it's source. I always love those unnamed sources, funny how they will say anything you want to hear. The one person who is quoted by name is Michael Springman, you are really going to love this link. This one shows you a few other brilliant quotes by Mr. Springman along with complete audio if you like although I have not authenticated his voiceprint. /images/graemlins/smile.gif In short he states that he was involved with the CIA to bring middle eastern men to the US, trained them as terrorists then turned them loose to dive-bomb the WTC. You just gotta believe someone who says this right brad? I believe his credibility is somewhat lacking. perhaps this is why no further investigation was warranted.
Michael Springman and the CIA (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/cia_complicit_on_sept_11.html)
I'll get around to your 2nd link later, as soon as I quit laughing about this one.
no in my original reply to you i said your nm reply about the moon was either a straw man or ad hominem and in your next reply you stated it was not an ad hominem. (but didnt say it was not a straw man) heh
Wake up CALL
09-03-2003, 03:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
http://propagandamatrix.com/us_agents_told_to_backoff.html
http://propagandamatrix.com/newsnight_greg_palast_report.html
basically the administration insituted a hands off policy of saudis and others and issued visas to known terrorists.
i dont see how u can argue with this.
of course the opinion part may be its just a mistake, or it was just business, or whatever.
in any case easy to see why no investigation into 911, since all this 'dirty laundry' would come out and at the very least make bush look real bad.
---
put another way though, if theres nothing to hide, why is there a cover up? (congressmen and senators have said this, but its easy to call that 'just politics' i guess. (even though some have been republians ) )
[/ QUOTE ]
OK brad, I did some research on Joe Trento from the interviews in your 2nd link. It appears he is a Hollywood movie consultant. Perhaps he doesn't have the top secret clearance and in depth knowlwdge of the inner workings of the Penatagon as CIA as he implies, YA THINK? LOL
Wake up CALL
09-03-2003, 03:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
no in my original reply to you i said your nm reply about the moon was either a straw man or ad hominem and in your next reply you stated it was not an ad hominem. (but didnt say it was not a straw man) heh
[/ QUOTE ]
Brad you loveable goofball you!! That was B-Man that asked you if you believed we had reached the moon. Not BruceZ! Man it is hard to follow any thread you get involved in.
well theres no use arguing about it. according to the link you provided he was interviewed by the bbc (greg palast i think) , so there should be a record.
unless you think the bbc cannot be trusted. if youre gonna make the argument that you can only believe what u see with your own eyes then its gonna be hard to have a discussion.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/5/29/192954
link from your original 'conspiracy' page.
'Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley has corroborated Wright's experiences dealing with FBI headquarters and senior management, "who consistently delayed, down-played and soft-peddled the investigative efforts of counterterrorism agents in the field," the organization said.'
the girl agent was on the nightly news as i recall.
BruceZ
09-03-2003, 03:40 PM
no in my original reply to you i said your nm reply about the moon was either a straw man or ad hominem and in your next reply you stated it was not an ad hominem. (but didnt say it was not a straw man) heh
What is this the twilight zone? That was B-Man. I'm not B-Man. I wasn't even involved in this thread, and I stumbled upon it by accident.
ok ok a little mistake there.
you can blame the basic interpreter (partially) which had only a two character unique variable naming system . (heh)
scotch gets the rest.
sorry about that it was a simple mistake thats all.
sorry.
BruceZ
09-03-2003, 03:47 PM
you can blame the basic interpreter (partially) which had only a two character unique variable naming system .
Then he'd be B- which wouldn't compile, and I'd be Br the same as you. Do you confuse me with yourself too?
also alex jones interviewd springman.
his guests have included congressmen, former JCS, etc.
i really doubt this guy doesnt exist.
BruceZ
09-03-2003, 03:48 PM
See, I told you all liberals had faulty premises. HAHAHAHA.
well you got me there, except i own an AK and think that everybody should /images/graemlins/smile.gif
and for pistols, the vermont style concealed carry law (ie, dont need a permit)
Wake up CALL
09-03-2003, 03:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
well theres no use arguing about it. according to the link you provided he was interviewed by the bbc (greg palast i think) , so there should be a record.
unless you think the bbc cannot be trusted. if youre gonna make the argument that you can only believe what u see with your own eyes then its gonna be hard to have a discussion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Brad how can you miss the point of my post? I never said the interview never took place on BBC. I said the idiot Greg Palast interviewed works in Hollywood as a frigging movie consultant, not in the CIA or Pentagon where he might accidentially have access to classified material. He works in the MOVIES, you know make believe! LA LA land!!!
Geez Brad!!!!!
as i stated above, second character was the scotch talking (viewing).
heh
hey im a complex system, you got to expect some glitches. at least i dont go into epileptic fits like windows /images/graemlins/smile.gif
well its a common name but the guy interviewed worked in the US embassy in riad or somewhere in saudi arabia ifirc.
in any case lets agree that its not an opinion. either there was a US government guy working in saudi US embassy or there wasnt.
from the info ive seen there was, but i guess you beleive in
CONSPIRACY THEORIES,
to wit, that an elaborate deception was made to invent this fictional person.
heh
well i think the joe trento is just some guy who wrote a book on the cia.
its michael springman who worked at US embassy.
'PALAST:
The secret file fell into the hands of national security expert, Joe Trento'
ive never heard of this guy either. hes some kind of writer/journalist with contacts i guess.
james bamford. now theres a guy. wrote body of secrets.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385499078/qid=1062619220/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-1030462-9324818?v=glance&s=books
he broke the operation northwoods story. (leaked to him)
(just government plan to kill americans to blame a foreign gov to justify invasion, no biggie. approved by JCS and according to bamford by eisenhower just before he left office)
by the way head of NSA (some general) wrote preface to bamford's book and said the NSA gave him access and everything and that its a great book.
BruceZ
09-03-2003, 04:03 PM
hey im a complex system, you got to expect some glitches. at least i dont go into epileptic fits like windows
You got that right. Actually XP has been pretty stable except for the catastrophic security holes they have to fix every 5 minutes. "An attacker can gain access to your system and take a variety of actions". LOL What the hell has been going on all these months?
I design embedded firmware. That's the stuff that most people don't even know exists if it's working properly, and if it's not, the world comes to an end, literally. We're not allowed to have bugs, so I find it hard to understand how Microsoft can sell the debris it does.
actually it was much worse as it was interpreted so it was runtime error or worse no error just treated brucez and brad as same variable. heh
adios
09-03-2003, 04:08 PM
read just the other day s. korea, japan, and china are gonna invest in a huge project to come up with a new operating system to replace windows cause its so security messed up.
BruceZ
09-03-2003, 04:08 PM
I know, I remember basic. We didn't have fancy GUIs and object oriented programming languages. We had 1's and we had 0s, and sometimes we didn't even have 0s. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
id like to know if youd like to tell, as i said its not like i agree 100% my position is that wakeupcalls position that there is nothing at all to this, is wrong.
so my positon is that there is not nothing (0%) to this.
adios
09-03-2003, 04:22 PM
My understanding is that China has adopted it for a lot of government apps albeit on servers mostly. BTW I worked as a developer on a BASIC Interpretor for Pertec Computer Corporation shortly after Pertec bought MITS and Microsoft went their own way from MITS. There was a court case in New Mexico District Court circa 1975 or 1976 where Microsoft sued Pertec for the rights to the BASIC interpretor source code. A settlement was reached where Microsoft and Pertec would start from the same versions of the code and do whatever they desired with it. The code was actually hosted on a PDP-10 owned by Albuquerque Public Schools. Well Microsoft did well with their compilers and interpretors and eventually bought their own PDP-10 and moved to the state of Washington in 1978 I believe. Pertec had a lot of good ideas but they were ahead of their time. Anyway Windows is POS for a couple of reasons. First of all there have been two separate development paths for Windows, the Windows 3.1 path and the Windows NT path if you will. Second security considerations were never really made and thus designed into either operating system. XP has migrated along the Windows 3.1 path and has evolved finally into an OS with some robustness.
i dont know the article somewhere said it was a 5 year plan or something but that it would be based on linux or something. which is weird, maybe somebody mistranslated and plan was to standardize linux for platforms in those countries by 2008 or something.
yeah thats funny i read bill gates claim he and a couple other guys machine coded basic interpreter from scratch and first time they ran it was when they presented it for a contract to some company. heh
adios
09-03-2003, 04:38 PM
The story goes that they had an Intel 8080 simulator on some main frame at Harvard and debugged it with the simulator. That's certainly feasible since a the BASIC interpretor didn't have any stringent real-time requirements or anything like that. Also it didn't have to support many I/O devices except for a paper tape reader,CRT, and some floppy disk drive that supported huge floppy disks. I don't think the first version even supported floppy disk I/O.
just to clarify, tom, id say its like 1000000 times more likely that your story is true, heh.
but maybe gates just meant they ported it over to some other platform i dont know.
adios
09-03-2003, 04:45 PM
What you said didn't conflict with what I said at all, in fact you're right. Microsoft started in Albuquerque and worked out of the MITS facility for sometime, I think a year or so. The interpretor was enhanced and modified continuously from it's original version. Eventually MITS got so swamped with orders they couldn't handle them all and sold themselves to Pertec which is when Microsoft went their own separate way. Pertec disputed Microsofts claim to the source code because of their close association with MITS as well as working at the same facility.
i could be wrong but i read it in a book but i may be misremembering that gates said they wrote out and debugged the whole thing by hand, no computer at all, debugged it by hand, put it on paper tape, and flew somewhere and loaded it onto the computer and where happy it ran cause it was the first time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
maybe i misremembered or maybe he didnt count emulators as a computer or something .
so whats the wrong premise and more in this thread? /images/graemlins/smile.gif
BruceZ
09-03-2003, 04:52 PM
There was movie about this called Pirates of Silicon Valley. It may have just been on HBO or USA or something.
Unix (or linux) rocks. Everything else is training wheels for the mentally feeble.
adios
09-03-2003, 04:58 PM
The movie is fairly accurate about the stint in Albuquerque. I do know that Bill Gates ruined more than his share of Porsche engines and got more than a few speeding tickets.
Wake up CALL
09-03-2003, 06:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
id like to know if youd like to tell, as i said its not like i agree 100% my position is that wakeupcalls position that there is nothing at all to this, is wrong.
so my positon is that there is not nothing (0%) to this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Brad you are becoming as bad as Cyrus when it comes to distorting other peoples positions. I said if the sources used for the articles lack credibility it casts heavy doubt on the entire article. How can you disagree with this?
'I said if the sources used for the articles lack credibility it casts heavy doubt on the entire article. How can you disagree with this? '
where did u say this? if i recall you said these were crazy conspiracy theories.
are you saying the bbc lacks credibility? btw have u figured out that micheal springman and the other guy the writer are not the same person (as you claim?).
'Your first link attributes "unnamed FBI" agents as it's source. I always love those unnamed sources, funny how they will say anything you want to hear'
i provided a link naming 2 fbi agents. are you claiming they are not real people also?
----
youre whole argument is that this is all made up. right? that none of these people (including greg palast i assume) even exist. right?
Wake up CALL
09-03-2003, 06:47 PM
"youre whole argument is that this is all made up. right? that none of these people (including greg palast i assume) even exist. right? "
With this latest supposition I must place you in my "No Comment" file.
then i officially win as you can no longer answer.
btw i wasnt being saracastic that is your position as far as i can tell.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.