There are a series of events that beg the question - was 9/11 really a surpise attack? The Patriot Act was printed and ready to be taken off the shelf for passage into law as soon as 9/11 happened, various warnings from foreign governments, George W. Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing, etc., all imply that the National Security State as we know in America today, was a foregone conclusion. Do you agree? (some other facts) Historical Precedent -"repeated pattern of manufactured pretexts for galvanizing support for imperial wars - the blowing up of the Maine (189, Pearl Harbor (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Gulf of Tonkin (1964), Operation Northwoods (1962 Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US citizens to justify invasion of Cuba), the encouragement of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (1990), the first WTC attack in 1993 (which the FBI knew about in advance), Oklahoma City in 1995 (in which there was also "prior knowledge" at the very least) " 9/11 Progressive "left" media stand down on questioning official version of 9/11 [SIZE=+2]Best analyses of "left gatekeepers" who pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack[/SIZE] left gatekeepers: the stand down of the liberal, alternative media about 9/11 denial is not a river in Egypt, psychological reluctance to confront the full truth The Nation supports the official stories of JFK (Warren Commission) and 9/11 Norman Solomon FAIR and the Institute for Public Accuracy, helped lead defense of 9/11 official story in 2002 Chip Berlet Right Woos Left: Chip Berlet defends Bush regime against claims of complicity Democracy Now 90% of their work is good, but they avoid the most important issues Noam Chomsky Where Noam will not roam: Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore and setting up the invasion of Saudi Arabia Mother Jones defends 9/11 cover-up Commission and denies vote fraud in Ohio Ward Churchill supports "Blowback" paradigm, misses real story of 9/11 complicity Counterpunch Alexander Cockburn ridicules investigations into 9/11 complicity and vote fraud Alternative Radio also avoids deeper understanding Greg Palast great work on vote fraud but not on Peak Oil or 9/11 Institute for Policy Studies "progressive" party line Inter Press Service liberal news service that dismissed 9/11 International Inquiry in Toronto (May 2004) MoveOn Democratic Trojan Horse to control dissent Larry Bensky Pacifica Radio correspondent 9/11 Best Evidence
thats something the paid shills here always ignore is the part about PNAC and how it was planned long ago to ram the patriot act in.Noam chomsky is easily the biggest paid shill of them all.he is such a fraud its unreal.Although he is a clever one I have to say.Michael Moore needs to be added to that list as well.oh and it was hardly a surprise attack since there were multiple warnings given to Bush and the FBI that superiours ignored.
You'd best start showing some proof that anyone here on this board is 'paid' by anyone,or stop using the insult
The evidence shows that it was an inside job so it obviously wasn't a surprise attack. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/226501-standard-evidense.html#post4958212
Many opinions lead you and others to believe it was an inside job. The evidence tells a different story however.
Those pro-official version posters told some blatant lies on another thread. Here's a link to the info. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...onspiracy-theory-5-minutes-5.html#post4976475 They know that 9/11 was an inside job as well as the truthers do. They are so desperate that they have stooped to telling blatant lies. They lie about what videos say to try to sway those viewers and lurkers who don't take the time to watch the videos. I hope the viewers and lurkers who don't have the time to watch the videos posted on these threads don't simply believe what the pro-official version people say that the videos say. That disinfo tactic can be added to this list. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
I think the real question is how long before each accuses the other of being paid to derail the truth...
EG has already done that, but the residents are pretending not to notice. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...1-directed-energy-weapons-19.html#post5000223
This is Scott's pat response that he pulls out whenever he is confronted with something he can't refute. By the way, can you point out exactly where and what those lies are?
Lather rinse repeat. You've turned into a broken record, Scott. Why don't you try to respond to the serious flaws in your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories instead of just whining about always losing and then lying about everyone else.
You're just trying to still up trouble. I think the original topic is very important and I hope people post more on it. I just want to make it clear that this issue is not about whether 9/11 was an inside job as it's already been proven. This issue is about when they started planning it and what their plans entailed, etc. It's good to know all the other details besides the obvious stuff. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/226501-standard-evidense.html#post4958212
I swear, I don't even know what 'still up trouble' means. Who exactly is this 'they' you keep referring to? Names, please!
Also,I'd like to know where '9/11 was an inside job' was proven?......Scott's standard of proof must be really low.
So, if it has been proven as you claim, why can't you answer the glaring issues with your own bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories? Every time you're asked you either run away or repeat the answers you've already given, but can't explain. It must truly suck trying to defend the nonsense you do, especially when you have zero real evidence. And to repeat, since you have to do that a lot with Truthers, paranoid delusions are NOT evidence; they are a sign of a mental sickness.
It hasn't been proven. There is no evidence to support that claim. You posting that it has been proven 50,000 times won't make it true. If it had been proven then you would have PROOF to back up your claim instead of your so called "plausible scenarios", "maybes", "could haves", and "might haves" that litter your posts.
