Former German Minister Confirms CIA Involvement In 911

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Is the very reason i never said i would give Proof.

I said i would DISPROVE, your claim that Zarqawi exists.

I said "i have EVIDENCE, and reasons that support my claim".

Wether you take it as irrefutable evidence, or evidence at all, is up to you. But I gave alot of evidence, evidence that deserved closer inspection. But no matter, i will post it all in summary form again on a new thread.



The court example is useless, yes it will be evidence in court but no one should be convicted on finger print evidence alone.


*sigh* Calm down SS, Calm down.

THAT. SIR, WAS. MY. POINT!

It may not be evidence enough to convict them in certain courts, but it's still evidence. Just like the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, may not be irrefutable evidence, but it's still evidence.


there has to be motive, opportunity, etc. also you gave no hard physical evidence of Al-Zarqawi being an imaginary person.


In the Zarqawi thread, i provided motive, and opportunity. And i provided evidence. Now i wasn't aware you could send Physical objects through the internet, if you find a way, please tell me. Otherwise, go read the evidence which i did give, go make sure my sources where accurate, i'm sure you'll find it is logical and convincing.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
lose my temper in an intellectual arguement.

But i just have no patience when people are dense!



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
We are meant to accept that our country won a war against Germany with air power and yet on the morning of 911 we allowed four commercial planes to fly around without any top-gun interception?


For real.
To buy into the official story is to embrace an insidiously ridiculous ignorance.

I have far too much faith in our nation's security/military/intelligence apparatus to believe that they could let something like this happen. Hundreds of times a year airplanes are intercepted within minutes of going off course. This was allowed to happen. How then, would all those good people I mentioned above go along with it? Easy. They were stood down, believing various training exercises were going on.

Ask yourselves honestly - Who benefitted? The answers are more than obvious.


This jets-as-bombs plan was written out in a Tom Clancy book for god's sake.


Yes. I read that (post-9-11). Talk about disturbing. I can't even read him anymore. The propaganda makes me ill.


Also, why did the steel from the largest mass-murder in American history get quickly trundled off to China? why was the crime of 911 so poorly investigated by our nation?


The evidence was shipped off US soil as quickly as possible. Same company, btw, that took care of the Oklahoma City Bombing debris.

The answer to your last question is self-evident. If a gang of cave-dwelling whack-jobs actually were responsible for this we would've seen the most extensive investigation in our nation's history and subsequent trials. To this day, no one has been held responsible. That is inexusable.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I'm sorry, maybe i should have made myself clear. When you say you have evidence people actually expect you to have something more than news stories and conjecture. Yes it is very interesting that a lot of things about Al-Zarqawi don't add up and that the American inteligence community still believe sources that have been shown to be incorrect, but that only throws doubt on what we know about him not necessarily that he doesn't exist.

As for the finger print evidence, you have no evidence coming even close to the level of finger prints.
And this gem,



sweety, why don't YOU provide ME

with SOLID evidence that he does exist?

This is from a thread from where you said you had proof that Al-Zarqawi didn't exist. The onus is on you to show that he doesn't, not to make other people show he does.

This 'argument' started because you had reason to believe that the level of evidence required on this site for theories to be believed is too high, or that people refuse to believe theories without rigourous, detailed backing to claims. I believe that theories do require detail and rigour before they can be taken above what makes sense to you personaly, no one believes something that doesn't make sense to them on a personal level, and i require hard evidence to be convinced. This is something i don't think you provided.

As for this thread, what Djarums said is what I believe, that if you claim proof then you should have evidence, and if your 'evidence' is nothing but conjecture and speculation then you evidence is just that, conjecture and speculation, not proof.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
For this man (the German minister) to say these things publicly - using his own name on the record - is no small thing. How many times do sources refuse to be named in our newspapers? All the time (which is not a good practice for this very reason). A named source, on the record, is serious business. The fact that he held the positions he did is important, too. He is/was privvy to much classified material and knows many in the intelligence communities of his country and others.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Well, what they think has some credibility, seeing as how much they have learnt from history.

no, it doesn't. The germans don't have some psionic ability to detect dictatorships. Their history proves that they don't have a clue, not the reverse. They have no evidence for this conspiracy, and support it anyway. Thats called 'bunk'.

They've got logical brains.

Logic tells you that when a rich guy who's already fought guerilla wars in afghanistan and maintains a network of terrorists as associates, forms a terror organization, declares war on you, attacks your embassy, and then attacks one of your warships, and has the backing of an entire Nation State thats ideologically alligned with him, that maybe, just maybe he was the one who made the big attack.
But no, it was all a cia operation, there were no planes that hit the pentagon even tho people saw it and the planes are gone, steel can allways hold buildings up unless its reduced to liquid, and it was all done to 'help' the CIA, even tho its been turned upside down and put under the oversight of a cabinet secretary, or to benefit the administration, which is only unpopular because of the war that ensued from it. Yeah, 'follow the benefits', cuz 911 was 'so' beneficial to bush, or those eeeevil joooos. Its unthinkable that a bunch of jihadis can be skillful enough to turn a plane around or hit a building. Its unimaginable that the very people calling for the destruction of the west, america, and its 'imperialistic system' have been at all competent enough to attack it, it simpy 'must' be the secret machinations of a two-faced president, all so his 'cronies' can get money from a war, rather than a vibrant economy and international-globalism, or get a second 4 year term in office. No, they did it becuase they wanted to pass the enabling/Patriot act, which with one stroke destroyed every freedom everyone's had, only in such a way that no freedoms have been destroyed and no one suffers. Yeah, its a good thing we have the 'germans' with their 'big consiousness' of dictatorship to let us know that the real villians are 'the jews and illuminati', which just happens to be the same lie they fell for the first time.

Theory: 9/11 was an inside job. EVIDENCE, a 3rd building went down for apperantly no reason.

See, thats not evidence. Unless you were one of the structural engineers who investigated the collapse, thats not evidence.

Why is it that on this site, "evidence" only means things that the lieng US government are prepaired to say?

There is no official definition of evidence. If the majority of the peopel reject your 'evidence' its because its, literally, unconvincing.

when i was trying to explain to them the concept of logic and the fact that you can't prove a negative.

And yet you want to demonstrate that al-zarqawi doesn't exist? There's only going to be evidence that he does exist, not evidence that he doesn't.


But i just have no patience when people are dense!

You're calling other people dense when you think zarqawi 'doesn't exist' and that 'the cia 'did' 911'?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Well, what they think has some credibility, seeing as how much they have learnt from history.

no, it doesn't. The germans don't have some psionic ability to detect dictatorships. Their history proves that they don't have a clue, not the reverse. They have no evidence for this conspiracy, and support it anyway. Thats called 'bunk'.


Several intelligence agencies - including Germany's warned the US administration something big was about to happen. The warnings went unheeded. Considering positions Von Bulow held, its more than likely he had inside info.





Logic tells you that when a rich guy who's already fought guerilla wars in afghanistan and maintains a network of terrorists as associates,


Without meaning to, you are referring to the CIA and Pakistani ISI.

Their Afghan, Pakistani, Yemeni (and so on) foot soldiers believe their propaganda too; and even they don't know the hand that feeds them. Damn dupes. All the way around.


[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
All one has to do (to know the official story is pure bunk) is go back and look at how the NORAD handled the Payne Stewart case. Within minutes after his jet went off course, it was intercepted, according to SOP.


Hmm, I think you need to know more than that, because the intercept didn't occur for 76 minutes (the confusion came about because the plane crossed between time zones). See the summary report at www.ntsb.gov...



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Considering positions Von Bulow held, its more than likely he had inside info.

I had considered that, especially considering that there were warnings and whatnot, however, he doesn't seem to have any sort of information. I don't think its good to assume that he has implicating information merely because he might've been in a position to know.


Without meaning to, you are referring to the CIA and Pakistani ISI.

I am aware that the ISI was a major proponent of the creation of the Taliban and a back of the Jihadis, yes.

I would just like to see some damning evidence of this conspiracy. Other peopel say that it makes sense, that it 'gels'. But I've been looking at it, and it doesn't make sense, it doesn't gel. The standard story is a better explanation than the needleslly invovled conspiracy theory. And its rather frustrating to have everyone talk about the conspiracy, but not have any 'proof' of it. Obviously, one can't expect a memo reading
'Hey george, remember northwoods? I can one up it, think NYC and Remote Controlled Airliners", but still, there has to be somethign to support it.

I mean, look at the Reichstag fire. The Nazis benefited from it, sure, by why wouldn't the anarcho-communists firebomb it anyway? And the Reichstag fire didn't kill thousands and destroy the ecnomic base of their own country or force their hand in a war. Also, if you are bush, the cabal, the illuminati, whatever, do you really need 911 to go to war with places like Iraq and Iran? I mean, even if bush 'stupidly' pushed war with iraq, does it really require a dark illuminati like conspiracy or The Joooos in order to explain that behaviour?? And once you go to war with Iraq/Iran/Syria, you don't even need a Manufactured Domestic Emergency
to get 'the public to accept' the patriot act, or retinal scanning for airport employees, or Federaly intergrated Terror Watchlists and standardized license requirements, or any of that. Doing 911 doesn't give you anything. Also, if you did 911, you'd've taken advantage of the Global Sympathy, certainly better than Bush did, no?
So I don't see it as making sense, the whole thing seems strained, even in the general details.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
"news stories and conjecture."

If you had read what was inside those stories, you would have seen the evidence is clear. Perhaps you should go back and have a read.

i showed that the official US line about Zarqawi is based on unreliable, and often contradictory sources.

I showed that the official US line was often false.

I showed that the people who the US say are meant to be seeing him,

And since the US is the only people asking us to belive in him, what evidence do we have that he still exists, or even existed at all?

These are the things that i based my evidence on. my evidence may not have been irrefutable to you, but i never claimed that i would give irrefutable evidence. I said i would give evidence, and i did. Take it or leave it.

When i said, "why don't YOU provide ME. with SOLID evidence that he does exist?" i was merely trying to demonstrate, that you can't prove a negative. It is up to the person who makes the claim that something exists, to prove that it exists.

In that very thread at the very begining, i admited i was in a lazy mood, i asked you to be patient, and i finnished submitting the evidence. You didn't even look at it twice. But i'm glad you ask, since now i have this power at my fingertips.


You said
"This 'argument' started because you had reason to believe that the level of evidence required on this site for theories to be believed is too high,"

Wrong, i belive that evidence on this site, isn't even called evidence.

"or that people refuse to believe theories without rigourous, detailed backing to claims"

Wrong, i have always said, you can belive what you want to belive, take the evidence or leave it. BUt don't say we didn't give evidence, because by definiton, we did.

"I believe that theories do require detail and rigour before they can be taken above what makes sense to you personaly, no one believes something that doesn't make sense to them on a personal level, and i require hard evidence to be convinced. This is something i don't think you provided. "

The evidence i provided to you may not have been hard enough by your standard. That's fair enough,i have no problem with that. But you can't say i didn't have any evidence at all.

"As for this thread, what Djarums said is what I believe, that if you claim proof then you should have evidence"

I never claimed to have proof, because you can't prove a negative, i claimed to have evidence, and i gave evidence.

if you had read it, you would see it was not just conjecture and speculation, but quite logical.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
You've made your mind up. And that's fine. I still stand by what I said, though. Perhaps we have different sources.

I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that members of this administration, certain lackeys they own in the Pentagon and other assorted NeoCons were behind the attacks of Sept. 11.

Operation Northwoods proves that members of our government and military/industrial complex are quite capable of and ready to false flag us into war.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

"Logic tells you that when a rich guy who's already fought guerilla wars i.... maybe he was the one who made the big attack. "


Perhaps, if that guy existed in the first place.



"There is no official definition of evidence. If the majority of the peopel reject your 'evidence' its because its, literally, unconvincing"


No official definition of evidence you say?

dict.die.net...
n 1: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to
2: an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling
was evidence of his fear"
3: (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact
whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is
established or disproved

base belief;

Wether or not you belive it to be convincing evidence or not, is not my concern. It remains evidence


"And yet you want to demonstrate that al-zarqawi doesn't exist? There's only going to be evidence that he does exist, not evidence that he doesn't. "


Yes, i have said you can't prove a negative, but that doesn't mean you can't disprove a postitive. I attempted to demonstrate that he doesn't exist by showing the evidence i have for making that claim.


"You're calling other people dense"

When someone repeats my own arguement back to me, as if it is something new, yes i would call that dense.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that members of this administration, certain lackeys they own in the Pentagon and other assorted NeoCons were behind the attacks of Sept. 11.

So...in other words they have god like powers and god like foresight.

Something like 9/11 takes years to plan, not 8 months. Meaning, those people in the administration and Pentagon had to know they would be in their positions years ago. Bush had to know years beforehand that the election would come down to just a few hundred votes in Florida so years ago as Governor of Texas he set all the people in the right places in Florida with his supernatural powers. Even Clinton had to be a part of it. He had to distract the media and congress so Bush and Co. can do their thing, that's why the ML scandal came up.

Right?





I wonder which power Condi has.....



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
You've made your mind up.

Compelling evidence would change it.




Operation Northwoods proves that members of our government and military/industrial complex are quite capable of and ready to false flag us into war.

True enough. it also demonstrates two other things, one is that the civilian government can stop it, but, more disturbingly, that it can be covered up for nearly a generation, and then when its made public, even tho the perpetrators are still alive and in government no one cares.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
So...in other words they have god like powers and god like foresight.


They have a helluva lot more power (means and motive) then anyone outside our government. What you people who buy the official fiction miss is you actually believe these cave-dwelling radicals were able to outsmart and outgun our intelligence apparatus. I for one have much more confidence in our abilities. So-called intelligence failures is complete BU#. But hey, if you want to believe that Osama and the boys are better at it than our alphabet agencies, then be my guest.



Something like 9/11 takes years to plan, not 8 months.


Good grief. Go back and study PNAC, the Clean Break Strategy, etc. The Neo Cons worked their a double s's off through the '90's on this crap. Wolfowitz even said (stupidly) all that is needed to re-shape the middle east is some kind of Pearl Harbor type event as a catalyst. Open your eyes, man. It couldn't be more clear.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
It also demonstrates one is that the civilian government can stop it.


Who stopped it? President John F. Kennedy.

Who got murdered in front of all the world to see?

John F. Kennedy.

Co-incidence? You be the judge.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I don't think that 9/11 was perpetrated to provide an excuse to attack Iraq.

I think the reason goes much deeper than that.
I think it was done to shake up the American public, long enough and hard enough, to allow for the perpetual suspension of constituional rights, i.e., the Patrioct Act. So that a consolidation of power could be facilitated by those who see it as a means to a end. That end being a police state where the populace exists for the benefit of the few. The few being the politicos and their corporate puppetmasters. Call me paranoid if you like. I don't feel paranoid though.
I think the actions in Iraq and elswhere are opportunistic and profitable to those same few.

I do think that the man is credible. No he doesn't give ironclad evidence. Neither can anyone on this board give ironclad evidence that he is a liar. Which is what some here seem to be calling him.
I've already said that his choice of venue was regretable.
It may be, however, that the mainstream venues were unwilling to report his "opinion"(we'll just call it that), because of his high position and the credibility that implies. Do you actually think your news comes to you unfiltered?
Look at what happened to the reporters that pursued the Franklin Case.
The consequences to the victims and reporters of that exposure are public record. But I guess some folks will deny that happened as well.
Again I will say, without posting a myriad of links, that he is not the only person, in a position, to know something more than the folks on this board, to imply what he does.

And I agree that the government's story is logical. Of course it is. My 16 year old tells very logical lies. But logic can be applied in any direction. The direction of the lie or the direction of the truth. Being logical does not give evidence of reality.
I can't say that this whole scenario that the Minister describes, is absolutely true. But it is plausible, possible and logical.

He's accomplished alot more during his life than most of us have. He has more to lose in both reputation and probably finances than most of us here. He took a hell of a chance. Why?
That's what you call illogical. Logic would seem to say that he should keep his mouth shut. After all his postion above the teeming populace would gaurantee him and his, a good place in the so-called NWO. It is possible but not logical that maybe, he just cares and wants to get the word out to whoever and however he can.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by freddieb
I don't think that 9/11 was perpetrated to provide an excuse to attack Iraq.


Afghanistan was the first step. Iraq was the second. Iran will be the third. It's all about re-shaping the middle-east in our own image. And there are various reasons for that.


He's accomplished alot more during his life than most of us have. He has more to lose in both reputation and probably finances than most of us here. He took a hell of a chance. Why?
That's what you call illogical. Logic would seem to say that he should keep his mouth shut. After all his postion above the teeming populace would gaurantee him and his, a good place in the so-called NWO. It is possible but not logical that maybe, he just cares and wants to get the word out to whoever and however he can.


You make some very logical points.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
In george orwells 1984 (this one you know too well eastcoast
), there was two themes.

1. The perpetual war. To keep fear and hate within the population going.

2. The cival liberties taken away from the people, by use of fear tactics, "terrorist leader" called Goldestein. His image and his speeches where played on tv for a minute everyday, it was called "hate minute", the speach of the thin bearded man, was played on the news to scare people and fuel their hatred. Later in the book, you discover, that there is no such thing as Goldestein, and that the videos where a creation of INSOG.

Sure, the US wants to controll the middle east and the middle easter people, That is a very big point. And i agree with East Coast kid here.
But at the same time, i also agree with freddieb that they want to turn the US into a police state.

It's not one or the two, it's both.


[edit on 13-5-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Frankly, I still think David Copperfield had a hand in 9/11.

Seriously, i doubt many will change their minds UNLESS something happens later on (which it will) and even the sheep gasp, choke, scratch their heads and in a moment put it all together and come out and say "Darn, those loonies were right"...
Until then we will all continue down that dark path disecting that fateful day and each one of us thinking we are right.


Just remember; Open borders= Terror





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join