why wakeupcall is wrong, im right, and article from yesterday

[brad]

first an article from yesterday supporting the position that bin ladens got special treatment from whitehouse. (which in turn supports the 911 'conspiracy theory' position that 'something' was going on)

http://www.news.scotsman.com/interna...m?id=971322003

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...4941-3712r.htm

now for an anatomy of the debate yesterday. but first just let me establish the 'real' joe trento.

http://www.publicedcenter.org/stories/trento/
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/d...erl?0761525629
------------------
Joseph Trento has been an investigative reporter since 1968, when he joined the staff of the legendary journalist Jack Anderson. He is the author of Widows, the bestseller about the KGB's crippling of American intelligence, and Prescription for Disaster, an investigation into the Challenger explosion. He has worked for CNN's investigative unit; consulted for 60 Minutes, Nightline, Prime Time Live, and others; and appeared on numerous national shows, such as Meet the Press, CBS Morning News, Good Morning America, and NPR. Currently, Mr. Trento is president of the Public Education Center, a nonprofit national security news service. He lives in Virginia.
---------------------------

ok with that done, let us proceed to the debate.

a) i open. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=7&fpart=1

b) wakeup call ridicules post and says he laughs at it. laughs at unnamed sources and says the named source is crazy. wakeup provides no evidence.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...p;o=7&vc=1

c) i provide a link naming some fbi sources. wakeup ignores these.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...p;o=7&vc=1

d) wakeup attacks a greg palast interview by claiming joe trento is a hollywood weirdo. as i posted in this thread wakeup is incorrect, but in any case he provides no links.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...p;o=7&vc=1

e) wakeup still mistakenly characterizes one of the group in palasts interview and uses this to claim bbc is unreliable. note wakeup is dead wrong , he must have wrong joe trento, but we'll never know he doesnt provide link why he thinks (incorrectly) joe trento is hollywood guy.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...p;o=7&vc=1

f) wakeup gives up the fight by claiming im insane for asking him why he thinks greg palast and bbc is unreliable news source.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...p;o=7&vc=1

----

in summary, wakeups whole argument hinged on the erronerous fact that joe trento is a hollywood producer, when in fact he is an acclaimed writer about the cia and other stuff. in any case, he was only one of a number of people in the bbc greg palast interview.

in summary, wakeup cannot marshall even one iota of evidence that the links i posted are untrue. and btw, im not claimning 100% truth, i just think they need to be looked into.

and as the beginning of this post shows, there is something to allthis, as the whitehouse permitted bin ladens to fly out of country when airplanes still grounded. (btw, this story came out almost right after 911, but was ridiculed as 'conspiracy theory', i guess it takes two years for writers to get their editors to stop laughing and realize its true.)

[Cyrus]

and Wake up CALL as the prick.

There's no conspiracy there, man. Move on.

[brad]

r u saying the washington times article from yesterday was untrue, or that it is meaningless?

you realize the administration lied about it (if you dont think its untrue).

why would they lie if it didnt matter?

[Six_of_One]

That is what governments do...they tell lies.

I know I'm entering this argument late, but I'm curious -- in what way does the government allowing 140 Saudis to leave the country shortly after 9/11 imply that there was foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks? Certainly rich Saudis with the right connections would consider it in their best interests to leave the country at a time like that, Bin Laden family members more than anyone. Money talks...I'm not saying its right, by the way, but I don't see what it has to do with any possible conspiracy.

[Cyrus]

"r u saying the washington times article from yesterday was untrue, or that it is meaningless?"

Ah, the Washington Times. I usually exhaust my salt intake with the Moon rag. But I will not say their article's untrue, I will say it's meaningless.

"you realize the administration lied about it (if you dont think its untrue). why would they lie if it didnt matter?"

Oh, for a bunch of legit reasons. To avoid the obvious political embarassment, even though there was nothing to hide really. But try explaining that to a shell-shocked press (and a very nervous public).

Understand that the bin Ladins are an extremely wealthy family and a very, very large one. They also have their Washington connections, for business reasons (and not to promote Holy Islam). One black sheep in the family does not the family ostracise from the golf club. And contrary to feverish speculations, bin Laden's family was not in the know, unfortunately -- since the U.S. would then have surely found out about the planned 9/11 attack.

[brad]

how do u think hijackers got into country? they couldnt pass the vetting process for a visa, they got a special dispensation, because money talks.

without an investigation, why do u think things will change?

or do u think thats cool, just keep em comin. sweep everyting under the rug as keep business as usual?

[brad]

anyway wakeupall riducled the webpage saying such ideas as political cronyism and money played any contributing factor in 911.

he said webpage he linked to was equivalent to h.g. wells war of the worlds, pure fantasy.

well i took a few links and said hey, theres something there, maybe not a giant conspiracy but theres something to it. at the very least politics and money impeded the fbi investigations which could have prevented 911. i doubt anyone can argue with that.

that was my position, not that the total other end of the spectrum (cia behind 911) was true.

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]

well i took a few links and said hey, theres something there, maybe not a giant conspiracy but theres something to it. at the very least politics and money impeded the fbi investigations which could have prevented 911. i doubt anyone can argue with that.

that was my position, not that the total other end of the spectrum (cia behind 911) was true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree that politics and money impeded FBI or other government action which could possibly have prevented or altered the 9/11 attacks. And no, I don't think it should just be business as usual...I think it will be, though. There are too many people in positions of power who have a vested interest in preventing the kind of investigation you are talking about for it ever to happen.

For the record, I don't believe the CIA was behind 9/11. I think that often, simple greed and incompetence can explain things better than some hidden force pulling the strings behind the scenes.

[brad]

'I certainly agree that politics and money impeded FBI or other government action which could possibly have prevented or altered the 9/11 attacks.'

well thats basically what webpage said. the one wakeupcall posted as a ridicule and said look at how dumb this is.

[MMMMMM]

"at the very least politics and money impeded the fbi investigations which could have prevented 911. i doubt anyone can argue with that.

Might have prevented it, but probably not though. Just knowing that sometime in the next 6 months, say, some hijackings were planned to take place in a potentially catastrophic attack is very vague information. What could we have done, shut down all air travel for 6 months? The information would probably have had to be far more specific than that.

Perhaps, though, there is one other thing we could have done, had we been allowed to (according to Michael Savage):

(excerpt)

Stop The Left From Causing another 9/11 (interview)

"We could have stopped it before 9/11 had we not allowed political correctness to grip the minds of law enforcement. We could have rounded up all those suspicious people who shouldn’t be here. We could have stopped them from getting on borders. We could have prevented them from boarding airplanes.

The 19 hijackers were actually noted by the airline when they first got on the plane in Maine. This is a very interesting story. The airline security actually noted that they were flying first class, they had no luggage, and they looked like foreign nationals.

They wanted to detain them. The reason that they could not is that liberal, sick lawyers had sued the airlines prior to that occasion for "racial profiling," and the airlines lost the lawsuit. So the airlines weren’t able to use their own best judgment. That’s a microcosm of why we were hit on 9/11."[/i] (end excerpt)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/140229.shtml

Well maybe or maybe not. But I'll bet that more profiling, and the actually enforcement of immigration laws, would help significantly in reducing the potential for terrorist attacks in this country.