Debunk-a-LIHOP

[T.A.M.]

lol...Oliver.

1. You are correct, the current admin has abused its executive privileges, and does tend to use the "classified" label way too easy...that is not proof of anything on this issue, you know it. Be frustrated yes, but that is all.

2. Well a blow job here, a foot tap in the stall there, sex with an intern here, sexual inuendo with a page there...I think sexual skeletons have been brought out of both closets, and both have gotten alot of attention...

That said, i think bringing the affair of poor bill to court was perhaps playing spoiled sport...but I am sure, without a doubt, that if Bush was delighting in the play-for of a sweet little staf-for, the DEMs would be crying out for the same justice...at the tax payers expense.

TAM

 

[Pardalis]

That's exactly my point: We can't proof or disproof LIHOP.
Unfortunately...

No, it is not your point. You don't even understand your own point you're trying to make, I'm afraid.

Let me help you:

You're saying we can't know LIHOP because the Bush administration and/or the 9/11 Commission is withholding the information that will prove or disprove it in its classified documents.

Your whole premise is based on that assumption. The problem is that there is no reason to believe that this crucial information is necessarily in those documents, and there's no reason to say we can't find out some other way.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think the crux of the argument is one of assumption.

one side assumes nothing until proven with fact, the other will often assume the worst, when the evidence to prove otherwise is not present, or not made available.

However, those that assume nothing win, as you know what happens when you "assume"...lol

TAM

 

[Oliver]

No, it is not your point. You don't even understand your own point you're trying to make, I'm afraid.

Let me help you:

You're saying we can't know LIHOP because the Bush administration and/or the 9/11 Commission is withholding the information that will prove or disprove it in its classified documents.

Your whole premise is based on that assumption. The problem is that there is no reason to believe that this crucial information is necessarily in those documents, and there's no reason to say we can't find out some other way.

Listen to what Mrs. Eleanor Hill has to say about her role
in the congressional inquiry about the 9/11 attacks...

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/report.html

About time-code 00:35:00 :

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

http://video.google.de/videoplay?do...l=3&start=0&num=10&so=3&type=search&plindex=1

 

[T.A.M.]

Oliver, we all know there was a fair bit of disgruntlement, within the commission itself, about how it was run, etc...

Is this proof of intentional cover up...not really, it makes for suspicion of such. I think, in the end, it was likely political maneuvering for the purpose of convenient "washing over" of areas that would show incompetence...but it is just my feeling on it.

TAM

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, we all know there was a fair bit of disgruntlement, within the commission itself, about how it was run, etc...

Is this proof of intentional cover up...not really, it makes for suspicion of such. I think, in the end, it was likely political maneuvering for the purpose of convenient "washing over" of areas that would show incompetence...but it is just my feeling on it.

TAM

My impression is that there was a massive cover-up concerning
incompetence as well. But unless I know all the facts, I stay
open-minded for the possibility of knowledge beyond incompetence.

 

[gumboot]

That said, i think bringing the affair of poor bill to court was perhaps playing spoiled sport...but I am sure, without a doubt, that if Bush was delighting in the play-for of a sweet little staf-for, the DEMs would be crying out for the same justice...at the tax payers expense.

It's worth pointing out Clinton was not impeached for his sexual behavior. He was impeached for lying under oath. Perjury is a very serious offense.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

My impression is that there was a massive cover-up concerning
incompetence as well. But unless I know all the facts, I stay
open-minded for the possibility of knowledge beyond incompetence.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the US simply wasn't capable of preventing the attacks, except by dumb luck?

-Gumboot

 

[Pardalis]

But unless I know all the facts, I stay open-minded for the possibility of knowledge beyond incompetence.

So it is knowable?

 

[Oliver]

So it is knowable?

No - but what the classified information is about, is clear:

In an interview with the fifth estate, Eleanor Hill, chief investigator for the Committee, would only confirm that those files dealt with sources of foreign support for the hijackers.

"Because they're classified I can't tell you what's in those pages. I can tell you that the chapter deals with some information that our committee found in the FBI and CIA files that was very disturbing. It had to do with sources of foreign support for the hijackers."

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/report.html

 

[Pardalis]

No

Why not?

 

[T.A.M.]

As I said before, most here would likely agree, that if the full truth came out, it would probably reveal financial and possibly tactical support came from within the govts of both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. How high up? I am doubtful it was from the top, but rather somewhere in the middle. This information would make both the USG, and those allies look very bad, and hence, I think this is why that info was "classified", but of course, I am speculating...which is only useful as a coaster...

TAM

 

[Oliver]

Why not?

Because:

In an interview with the fifth estate, Eleanor Hill, chief investigator for the Committee, would only confirm that those files dealt with sources of foreign support for the hijackers.

"Because they're classified I can't tell you what's in those pages. I can tell you that the chapter deals with some information that our committee found in the FBI and CIA files that was very disturbing. It had to do with sources of foreign support for the hijackers."

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/report.html

Are you "slow-minded"?

 

[T.A.M.]

Oliver and Pardalis:

Please do not allow your personal issues to once again destroy or derail this thread.

TAM

 

[gumboot]

The hijackers had foreign support? Wow. I'm shocked.

Oliver, it is well known that Al Qaeda has a broad base of support in the Islamic world, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That's of no surprise whatsoever.

How you managed to get from "foreign support" to LIHOP (which, by necessity, would involve domestic support) I really have no idea.

-Gumboot

 

[Pardalis]

Oliver, I can read just fine, no need to make letters red and increase their size.

You just don't understand my question.

You need to change your attitude.

 

[Totovader]

But that's the problem here: The official version can be true
but there is still a chance that someone let it happen within
the CIA, for example. We don't have the financial ties which
would reveal the whole plot and who else was involved.

Hanlon's Razor- to claim that "someone" within the CIA or whatever organization you happen to not like at this particular moment would simply shred some secret intelligence or look the other way when such a massive attack on the American population was about to happen is quite ridiculous. We do absolutely have the financial ties- we do know the plot. But some people are not satisfied with the dull facts- they like to invent grandiose secret societies and evil maniacal people in power and all that.

The great thing about a stupid, bureaucratic, slow, and power-hungry government is that no one person has any say in anything. To claim that there's some head at the CIA that just automatically gets fed all the top secret OBL files and decided to delete them from his inbox with no trace and without telling anyone is not rational. Many people would have to be involved- just like MIHOP, there would have to be an extensive cover-up from so many people that it's just not possible. Thousands of people would have to be just looking the other way with the "actual truth" right in their hands- the claim is just ludicrous.

Something I notice about conspiracists- related to Hanlon's Razor- they think that people are just inherently evil- they come up with sick and twisted ways of how people in power just enjoy watching 3000 people die and jump at the chance to kill and murder everyone... usually for some profits or something... Call me skeptical, but I just don't think the majority of people are that evil.

Stupid enough: Many are happy with "Osama did it - end of story".
Being a skeptic, it doesn't convince me at all. Especially regarding
the blackened names within the congressional inquiry.

Non-sequitur. Being a skeptic has nothing to do with your simplification of the actual version of the events. I point to my argument above. A skeptical mind would consider that the LIHOP claim requires a lot of evidence, it's not the default position at all. Remember: a lack of evidence is not evidence of anything.

The Saudi's had a "free pass" - being swept under the carpet from
all official investigations...

A lack of evidence...

 

[beachnut]

LIHOP facts and evidence earns a Pulitzer Prize. So, why has the entire 9/11 truth movement, and moreover the greedy news guys, who would have a Pulitzer Prize. Where is it??
Why is there no Pulitzer Prize? No facts, no evidence. Those who say they have connected the dots are dolts. So now you tell me I can not prove I did not cheat on my wife? NO, you can not prove I did cheat on my wife. Therefore, I did not cheat on my wife and I am innocent as well as happy. Next silly LIHOP stuff, please.

We are not NAZIs, we do not have to prove we did not do it! You have to prove we did it. But my fellow USAF members will never give up and crack; you will never get the stand down order from my email inbox. Oops

Where is your (any 9/11 truther can tell me please) Pulitzer Prize? Woodward got one for Watergate, and if there was something up on 9/11, we would have the next Woodard and another Ford.

 

[tsig]

It's worth pointing out Clinton was not impeached for his sexual behavior. He was impeached for lying under oath. Perjury is a very serious offense.

-Gumboot

Is it worth pointing out that he was never impeached.?

 

[gumboot]

Is it worth pointing out that he was never impeached.?

He was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on two charges - perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Two other articles of impeachment - perjury in the Paula Jones case and Abuse of Power - failed.

-Gumboot