• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikileaks

DGM said:
Exactly. Why would you want to join them?


:boggled:
Click to expand...

I just wanted to point out how flawed their theories & thinking was since they're too chicken**** to come here & have a debate.

They like it where they are, safe & secure knowing that the Shill Moderators will take them under their wing.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
I just wanted to point out how flawed their theories & thinking was since they're too chicken**** to come here & have a debate.

They like it where they are, safe & secure knowing that the Shill Moderators will take them under their wing.
Click to expand...
Who are you pointing out how "flawed their thinking is" to? The crazy people?

Another old saying: "Crazy people don't realize they're crazy".
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Maybe he was playing partisan hack politics? Then again, this probably goes in the opposite direction of where you think the 9/11 attacks came from.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, but obstruction of justice is still obstruction of justice, politics or not.

You guys seem a bit too willing to let these obvious crimes go without prosecution.

The middle ground between twoofieism and debunkerism is playing politics with the investigation, but you guys don't seem interested in even admitting that. I think it's because you know any leak in the dyke will result in a flood.
 
RedIbis said:
Quite possibly, but obstruction of justice is still obstruction of justice, politics or not.

You guys seem a bit too willing to let these obvious crimes go without prosecution.

The middle ground between twoofieism and debunkerism is playing politics with the investigation, but you guys don't seem interested in even admitting that. I think it's because you know any leak in the dyke will result in a flood.
Click to expand...

A flood of what? Politics? Politicians are politicians. Since this is in the 9-11 subforum, what does that have to do with the complete lack of evidence that 9-11 was an inside job?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
A flood of what? Politics?
Click to expand...

Deception, secrecy, misinformation, lying, any number of nasty things that prevented the Commission from actually fulfilling its mission to give the fullest possible account of what happened on 9/11.
 
RedIbis said:
Quite possibly, but obstruction of justice is still obstruction of justice, politics or not.
Click to expand...
Could very well be.

RedIbis said:
The middle ground between twoofieism and debunkerism is playing politics with the investigation, but you guys don't seem interested in even admitting that. I think it's because you know any leak in the dyke will result in a flood.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to support an investigation into active government complicity in the 9/11 attacks based on evidence backed by a hoodlum group of architects that can't even demonstrate competent knowledge in their own field of expertise, or pilots/aviation investigators who can't demonstrate professional competence in air crash analysis. That's hardly political - I think my sentiments are widely shared with good reason.

If the material you found on the Saudi connection points to anything revolving the attacks themselves I'm all ears. I just need more details to form an opinion. Just saying, the evidence I continue to see on the MIHOP in it's current form doesn't warrant an investigation and the reasons for that are for the larger part not politically involved
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
If the material you found on the Saudi connection points to anything revolving the attacks themselves I'm all ears though. I just need more details to form an opinion
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Have you read Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud, or Philip Shenon's The Commission?
 
Not familiar with either. I'll read reviews and decide whether or not to buy them later next week.
 
Last edited:
I have read The Commission and it is excellent. Of course truthers are only giving you one side of the story, when Shenon gives both. And when Shenon started to distance himself from the conspiracy kooks, well they were greatly disappointed. Yes a staffer was fired, but for legitimate reasons in not handling classified documents properly. Could it have been overlooked? Perhaps, but Zelikow's democrat counterpart, Daniel Marcus agreed with the firing. There were staffers fighting with Zelikow all the time, in fact Zelikow had to compromise on many issues that didn't go his way, and had to completely recuse himself from the investigation into the presidential transition. He also tried to push for an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, and that failed. He also surprisingly attacked the administration when they weren't being forthcoming. This might stem from him being snubbed by Bush for not receiving a cabinet position. But he was good friends with Condi, and he did everything he could to not make her look bad.

As far as charities from Saudi Arabia funding terrorists, this is not news.

I'm no fan of Zelikow, and I don't think he should have been there. But obstruction of justice? Absurd. He may be an a-hole, but he is not a criminal.

If you want the true historical narrative of 9/11, I recommend The Looming Tower, Ghost Wars, Perfect Soldiers, The Shadow Factory, and Spying Blind. Also to dispel all the myths about the Bin Laden family, I would read Coll's The Bin Ladens. These are all books truthers avoid at all costs.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Who are you pointing out how "flawed their thinking is" to? The crazy people?

Another old saying: "Crazy people don't realize they're crazy".
Click to expand...

If by definition of "crazy people", meaning the Truthers, then yes, I'm pointing out their flaws.

Truthers don't realize that they're crazy. ;)
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Wikileaks doesn't decide what information gets leaked to them.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... but what we don't know is if Wikileaks has it and hasn't released it because of their own bias. The only way to know for sure is to see everything that Wikileaks has ever received, for, you know, full transparency and all of that...

I'm sure that they will be right on it...
 
RedIbis said:
Deception, secrecy, misinformation, lying, any number of nasty things that prevented the Commission from actually fulfilling its mission to give the fullest possible account of what happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Imagine if it had been Kissinger. Wait, someone tell me why it wasn't Kissinger again? Also, can anyone tell me which clients of his would pose a conflict of interest in the 9/11 investigation?
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Ahhh... but what we don't know is if Wikileaks has it and hasn't released it because of their own bias. The only way to know for sure is to see everything that Wikileaks has ever received, for, you know, full transparency and all of that...

I'm sure that they will be right on it...
Click to expand...


Just like conspiracy theorists and their belief that every authoritative organization "knows more than they tell", this is rather paranoid and baseless. These are not qualities of debate that people going head-to-head with conspiracy theorists should be displaying on other topics.

Amazing.

But if you want to know a "secret", Wikileaks is not a large organization. They have limited resources. Apparently, all of those resources are currently consumed by the latest, huge leaks from the United States. That would be why it appears that they're U.S.-focused (also likely, and ironically, the U.S. being a more free society, leaking is "easier").

And beyond that, do you now want them to just dump any and all information they have without doing any checks whatsoever? I thought people were angry because they mistakenly believed that is what Wikileaks already does...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom