The FBI "Kamikaze Pilots" Case; Informant warns FBI pre9/11 telling them the US Gov already knows

reply to post by PersonalChoice


OBL had NO , REPEAT NO, Connection to the 9/11 Attacks whatsoever . If you Believe otherwise , WHERE is Your EVIDENCE ? .........This Article is just a bunch of Disinfo PROPAGANDA !

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


To be fair though, the article wasn't about OBL connection to the attacks, nor was the document. That was just one comment of speculation coming from a informants informant, who was getting it from his contacts. Not sure how that all of a sudden qualifies the entire document as disinformation. The document was about a group of terrorist's that were already in the states planning a suicide attack by aircraft on multiple major US cities.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave you sound like a broken record, same old garbage in, same old garbage out.

Well of course I'm saying the same thing over and over. You're posting the exact same ridiculous abject paranoia over and over and when someone calls you on it you try to weasel out of your own words over and over.

Irrefutable fact number 1: The article the OP posted was written by Sibel Edmonds. If you attempt to deny this then you are lying.

Irrefutable fact numer 2: The article you're quoting wasn't written by Sibel Edmonds, It was written by someone else cherry picking what Sibel Edmonds said. If you attempt to deny this then you are lying.

Irrefutable fact number 3: You're claiming the article posted by the OP is a lie because "Sibel Edmonds said so". You are literally claiming Sibel Edmonds's article is a lie because Sibel Edmonds said Sibel Edmonds is lying. This is a contradiction in logic. If you attempt to deny this then you are lying.

Irrefutable fact number 4: There is no such thing as a contradiction in the natural world. Either one side, or the other, or both, needs to be invalid. This means either Sibel Edmond's article mentioned by the OP, or your side article that quotes Sibel Edmonds out of context, or both of them, are wrong. If you attempt to deny this then you are lying.

THEREFORE, you are either wrong to be relying on your side article that quotes Sibel Edmonds, or you are wrong to be relying on anything Sibel Edmonds says in the first place. If you attempt to deny this then you are lying. Of course, you are a truster who mindlessly trusts everything your damned fool conspiracy web sites tell you, so you almost certainly will deny it.

Go ahead and get the last word in, if you want. Your unrepentent zealotry in defending your damned fool conspiracy web sites is getting childish, and I've got better things to do. You have no credibility and I think I will take your fellow conspiracy theorists' advice (I.E. Bonez) to ignore you after all.

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by Zanti Misfit

 

To be fair though, the article wasn't about OBL connection to the attacks, nor was the document. That was just one comment of speculation coming from a informants informant, who was getting it from his contacts. Not sure how that all of a sudden qualifies the entire document as disinformation. The document was about a group of terrorist's that were already in the states planning a suicide attack by aircraft on multiple major US cities.

The reason why it's being branded as disinformation should be obvious- the article is making claims the trusters don't want to believe are true, namely, that OBL really was behind the attack and that it really was a terrorist plot. It's the same reason why they accuse everyone of being secret gov't disinformation agents when they say things they don't want to believe are true, up to and including Ted Olson for the "crime" of saying he talked to his wife on the phone. Their trust in those damned fool conspiracy web sites they're getting all their information from is so complete that they simply will not accept the fact they are wrong.

I find it incredible how the trusters will quote Sibel Edmonds like she was Mahatma Ghandi when she says things that sound like it supports their conspiracy claims, but the moment she says something that confirms what the 9/11 report is saying they'll do a 180 and even accuse her of being some secret gov't agent too. Interpret this behavior in any way you want, but this is NOT the hallmark of someone who's seriously interested in learning the truth of the events of 9/11.

Originally posted by DIDtm
Just so I understand correctly. In November of 2010, your two most glaring questions of 9.11 are the claims the 'truthers' (glad you got it right this time and didnt them 'trusters') make and not one iota of malicious corruption/lack of intelligence protocols in/of our government.
Is this right?
Because now...you seem to be siding on the conspiracy side...although youre not here yet.....youre getting close.
Ever wonder who in the government put the 'hush' on the following up of intelligence and why?

To answer your question...

a) I do have a number of questions, but the reason for 9/11 isn't one of them. The attack succeeded simply because there was too much incompetence involved in the system. Such operations, like any other military operation, don't rely upon the brilliance of the plan. It relies on making fewer mistakes than their opponent. Sibel Edmonds report shows some of the mistakes- the collection of intelligence was hamstrung by absurd requirements in the chain of custody, but I know there had to be more. We can bicker over what the precise mistakes are but at the end of the day it still was a terrorist attack.

b) However, I do question why the 9/11 conspiracy theorists insist on introducing so much outright BAD information into the mix when they're claiming it's the truth they're searching for. Interceptors were scrambled on 9/11 and they were even seen over NYC only minutes after the atatck and yet they claim "there was a military stand down". A NYPA bomb dog by the name of, "Siruis" was killed in the collapse of the WTC and yet they claim "all the bomb dogs were withdrawn just before 9/11". And so on and so forth.

I can certainly tell you why people in gov't would be hesitant to admit they were the ones who screwed up and caused 3000+ innocent victims to die. Can you explain to me the thought process behind a conspiracy theorist claiming, "Sibel Edmonds is lying because Sibel Edmonds said Sibel Edmonds is lying"?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Go ahead and get the last word in, if you want. Your unrepentent zealotry in defending your damned fool conspiracy web sites is getting childish, and I've got better things to do. You have no credibility and I think I will take your fellow conspiracy theorists' advice (I.E. Bonez) to ignore you after all.

Fortunately, I don't need to point this out to others since your own fellow conspiracy people I.E. Bonez are hoping that you'd just go away and stop making them look like crackpots by association. It's one of the few things I agree with them on, because as long as you fringe zealots insist on hijacking the 9/11 truth movement for your own personal gain, the chances there will ever be further investigations will be precisely zero.

Dave, pitting Truther against one another doesn’t help your opinions to what you think happened on 911.
BTW, I would like to see the evidence of Bones making this claim?
The fact is the report is a lie.
The fact is Sibel Edmonds never made any such statements about Bin laden being involved in 911, much less wrote a report about it.
The fact is WikiLeaks has created a fraudulent document making the claim that the information came from a written report from Sibel Edmonds and most 911 researchers know this report is a lie.

b) However, I do question why the 9/11 conspiracy theorists insist on introducing so much outright BAD information into the mix when they're claiming it's the truth they're searching for.

I do question OS protectors who insist on introducing so much outright BAD information into the mix when they're claiming it's the truth they're searching for.

Interceptors were scrambled on 9/11 and they were even seen over NYC only minutes after the attack

Dave, that is not true why do you continue to make up garbage?
I guess you have to in order to support the OS lies.

yet they claim "there was a military stand down". A NYPA bomb dog by the name of, "Siruis" was killed in the collapse of the WTC and yet they claim "all the bomb dogs were withdrawn just before 9/11". And so on and so forth

Dave. You’re ranting again and the topic is not about what you think about "Siruis" the dog.

I can certainly tell you why people in gov't would be hesitant to admit they were the ones who screwed up and caused 3000+ innocent victims to die.

Dave, there you go again making excuses to why you “think” our government didn’t respond on 911 or follow the normal protocols that they were all trained for.
Dave, you have absolutely no evidence to support that ridiculous claim because no one in our government ever admitted any wrong doing in doing their jobs on 911. Just “excuses” nothing more.

Can you explain to me the thought process behind a conspiracy theorist claiming, "Sibel Edmonds is lying because Sibel Edmonds said Sibel Edmonds is lying"?

edit on 7-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

Can you explain to me the thought process behind a OS defender who makes up fallacies that Sibel Edmonds told herself that she is lying, that conspiracy theorist did not make?