[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive]
Xtisme: Show me some proof that the Taliban was aiding and abetting AQ pre-911, instead of AQ simply hiding in the mountains. Show me that the Taliban could turn over OBL if they wanted to.
[/QUOTE]
To what end, exactly? What would convince you? This is, to me, like you requesting that water is wet, or a cite that the sky is blue. It’s not even seriously in question whether or not the Taliban aided AQ. Here is an excerpt from Wiki (that I’ve previously linked to in this thread):
As for your request for proof ‘that the Taliban could turn over OBL if they wanted to’, again I ask, what would you accept? I asked this earlier if you would accept as proof if I could show you that another weak country did in fact threaten AQ with turning over ObL and key AQ members if they didn’t leave…and AQ left. You did not accept this as proof. So…what WOULD you accept exactly?
This is simply an academic question, of course, because as I already pointed out, the Taliban never had any intention of turning in AQ…they were allies and had very similar philosophies. So…there isn’t any ‘proof’, because in our universe the Taliban never seemingly considered this as an option.
Do you understand how silly your requests are on this subject? Do you understand that it shows, quite clearly, that you really don’t understand this subject very well, and that by repeatedly asking for this kind of thing it also shows you are unwilling to even entertain the data presented to you? Assuming you do understand that, you should probably understand this as well…all of this stuff is old news, and has been debated ad nauseum on this board. So…most of the posters in this thread, with the exception of a few loony CTers, already know all of this stuff.
Are you suggesting that all these ‘facts’ you are coming out with to debunk those deluded twoofers, are common knowledge, or do you need to be pretty savvy to know all this stuff?
If it’s the latter, would those of you on the side of ‘the real world’ and the official theory, like to state your qualifications, or are you all just slightly more reliably informed armchair-theorists than myself? Again, if it’s the latter, reliably informed by who?
I’ve not forgotten. Until you and Telemark give me your personal credentials to counter any suppositions I may make, you’ll have to wait.
I’ll tell you mine upfront.
I’m very well-read, not easily blagged at all, have bags of common sense, have a healthy distrust of ‘authority figures’ and am extremely open to convincing persuasion, as opposed to being bludgeoned by ‘facts’. Oh, I also have a very devious mind, but reckon there are those much more devious than myself, who also have the resources and the power to do something more than think about things.
3 skyscrapers, 2 hit by a plane apiece, all collapse in one day due to fire, first time in history, for total collapse due to fire for skyscrapers in a single day. Either the buildings weren’t built correctly or something else is going on.
Third plane, manages to sneak by all the Pentagon’s security cameras, when one, which must have faced out onto the heliport in front of the crash site, must have picked something clearer up than what has been shown.
Fourth plane, possibly heading for the White House, fortunately gets brought down by brave passengers. Phew! Lucky government!
So despite hundreds of witnesses, bodies of passengers and plane parts you are complaining that there isn’t a market quality video of the impact for you to drool over?
Lucky? Way to crap on people’s heroism from your warm, safe chair. The people on that flight learned what happened to the other planes and decided not to be used that way. They made the ultimate sacrifice,only to have internet wastrels complain about their efforts.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Are you suggesting that all these ‘facts’ you are coming out with to debunk those deluded twoofers, are common knowledge, or do you need to be pretty savvy to know all this stuff?
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying it takes some kind of special knowledge to have read that the Taliban supported, aided and abetted AQ prior to 9/11?? Personally, I think it takes the ‘special knowledge’ consisting of the ability to read for the past decades, and the concentration to be able to follow along with the news.
So, no…you don’t need to be pretty savvy…you need to be able to read and follow along. Sadly, based on this post, this ‘special knowledge’ is beyond you. But, hope springs eternal! You don’t need a sooper sekret decoder ring or hand shake…you just need a brain and the will to use it. I’m confident that you too can use Google to look up the relationship between the Taliban and AQ! I know you can do it, 'mano!
Well, there are myriad news sources who have reported on the relationship between the Taliban and AQ. Independent reporters. Then there is what you probably consider a ‘bad source’, in that multiple governments have also reported and brought out evidence about the relationship. Then there is the Taliban and AQ themselves, who have never denied the relationship and have commented about it. Then there is the fact that the Taliban and AQ have been fighting together as allies since the invasion.
There is a cornucopia of data, in fact. Take your pick. No special knowledge needed. Simply the ability to read and follow along. Give it a shot, ehe?
Building 7 wasn’t hit by a 40,000L molotov cocktail moreover a molotov cocktail’s destructive power lies in it’s ability to create fire not crash into stuff.
It was already explained how Building 7’s peculiar architecture played a part in the fall of it, and photograph and video evidence showed that the collapse of the WTC tower caused more damage than it was assumed before.
Ok, based on this post (I was getting evidence don’t you know?) and your refusal to answer my last question to you it is clear that you are a CT.
In the previous thread (in which you participated) many explained with many details and cites why it was ridiculous to think that there was something else besides a passenger plane that crashed at the pentagon.
And it was explained before that there is no reason to think anything else was found. When the videos mentioned by the conspiracy theorists were released they showed only the effects of the crash and blast. It is then that the witness testimony, but even more importantly, the forensic evidence that has to be taken into account. And they demonstrated that a passenger Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and nothing else.
Jason Burke does not say that there is not an Al-Qaeda but shows that the way that “organization” is portrayed in the West is wrong. I do agree with him, but clearly the BBC show is an attempt to demonstrate how exaggerated their threat was painted by the USA after 9/11, The show does not demonstrate that Al-qaeda was a myth, but what their capabilities are. It was clear to me that the Keystone cops of terrorism got lucky on 9/11, but that does not make it an organization that we should ignore, a crime was committed in any case.
Because he did not answer the question and demonstrated that he could change his opinions regarding Griffin.
I demonstrated that Griffin say so’s were a lie regarding the transponder an radar operators.
If no acknowledgment of that lie (from Griffin) comes from the doubter of the official history then this is evidence that we are dealing with a conspiracy theorist that is a willful ignorant.
If you think a little bit you will realize that my last paragraph here shows that one can be a conspiracy theorist but show a willingness to change. If you think that that is an insult I would say that you are just trying to play to the refs.
If you want to demonstrate that you are the later CT then show us, but it is clear now that **ivan **is the former.
What? You’re not just moving goal posts now, you’re erecting new ones. And you didn’t list a single credential. Talking oneself up is not a “credential”.
