I’ve never heard of a paper called the Scotshman, but I have heard of The Scotsman.
Good question. Here is one example of a story that is well known in the rest of the world but unknown in the US: ‘Hijack suspects alive and well.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
This story lists 4 9-11 hijackers whose identities are in doubt. There are more, reported in other media outlets. The full story is here:
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/259.php
What does this mean? That the real hijackers used false identities? How do we know there were any hijackers? This casts doubt on the whole official story.
Yes. Thank you for explaining it all to me.
I’m gonna need a bigger tinfoil hat.
Three ways you can tell you have won an argument:
- The other person makes reference to tinfoil hats.
- The other person makes reference to medications you are
taking or forgot to take. - The other person inquires as to what brand of crack you are
smoking.
Woohoo!! I am still undefeated on SDMB!
I’ve been trying to detect irony in this for the last twenty minutes, and have failed utterly.
Keep trying. It’s like one of those magic eye paintings. You have to squint at it the right way.
Actually, Watergate was about sex. The CIA ran call-girl rings out of the Watergate Hotel for the purposes of sexual blackmail on politicians:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/02/national/main269091.shtml
Also the subject of a book by Jim Hougan:
http://www.conspire.com/hougan.html
And what is your theory about Kangas? That he traveled all the way across the country to commit suicide in his arch-nemesis’ bathroom in order to frame Scaife for his murder? That makes a lot of sense.
Well, unless you think that all of the pilots were involved in a conspiracy to willingly crash their own planes, then there were hijackers by the definition of the word “hijacker”. Figure in the cell phone calls sent out from planes - most notably from that journalist woman to her husband (her name escapes me) - that said, “Hey, we’ve been hijacked by Arab guys,” and I think there’s good reason to believe that there were, in fact, Arab hijackers that crashed planes into buildings. Oh, yeah, and Bin Laden said he was responsible. Of course, the pilots could’ve been in on it - or maybe they weren’t people, just robots; the calls could’ve been faked; Osama could be a CIA agent. snicker
But please, enlighten us. If the planes weren’t hijacked by al Qaeda operatives, then what, exactly, happened?
Jeff
Ben Laden never said he was responsible. If you are referring to the videotape, it was such an obvious fake I can’t believe so many
people believe it. It doesn’t even look like Ben Laden. Bob Mueller, head of the FBI, stated publicly that he has no evidence to link Ben Laden to 9-11, and if you look at Ben Laden’s rap sheet at fbi.gov, it doesn’t say anything about 9-11. The only evidence of boxcutters came from right wing commentator Barbara Olson to her husband Ted, but he gave 3 different versions of how she called him, including that she called collect from the seatback phone, which impossible (you need to swipe a credit card to even activate them). I don’t know if it is
physically possible to make a call on a cell phone from a plane at altitude going 500 miles an hour, but I doubt it.
The most logical explanation is that radio-controlled drones were used, or that the actual planes were remotely controlled.
But we need a real investigation to get past the layers of fabricated evidence and total mindfuck that the real perpetrators (CIA or Mossad) of 9-11 have presented to us. But that will probably never happen.
Who’s Ben Laden?
mystic:
Do you actually believe what you are saying or are you merely seeking attention? The latter is distinctly “not on” hereabouts.
It is perfectly possible to make a cell-phone call at speed and altitude. I suggest you start a thread entitled “September 11th was a conspiracy” in which to put forward your ideas. (That is, if you are not playing a game here: I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m just helping you represent yourself clearly).
If this is a veiled argument directed at me, you obviously don’t get the point I was trying to make. I was addressing one of your sources. Anyway, your arguments and evidence are somewhat self-defeating. I won’t waste any more of your time.
IT IS URGENT YOU STOP REPLYING TO THIS THREAD! WE ARE CLOSING IN ON THE DISSIDENTS (WHO WE WILL USE IN OUR BRAIN-DISSECTION EXPERIMENTS) AND YOUR REPLIES TO THIS THREAD WILL SLOW OUR ARRIVAL BY SEVERAL MINUTES. IN THE SHADOWY WORLD OF INTERNATIONAL INTRIGUE, MINUTES CAN COST LIVES!
I AM TYPING THIS ON A SPECIAL ENCRYPTED KEYBOARD THAT CAN ONLY TYPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
I ALSO DEMAND THAT THIS MESSAGE BOARD COLLECT ALL INFORMATION REGARDING THESE DISSIDENT POSTERS AND PUT IT IN A BROWN PAPER BAG, WHICH YOU WILL LIGHT ON FIRE, LEAVE ON DAN RATHER’S DOORSTEP, RING THE BELL AND RUN.
IF YOU ARE CAUGHT, WE WILL DENY ALL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR ACTIVITIES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
THIS CONVERSATION NEVER HAPPENED.
FORMER FENRIS
If I may deconstruct this:
- You make bullshit statements.
- Others argue the finer points of your bullshit.
- You respond with more bullshit.
- Others declare your arguments are, in fact, bullshit, by implying you were mentally ill or otherwise impaired when you posted them in the first place.
- You do a happy dance and declare victory.
I don’t see the Philospher’s Stone in this sequence that magically turns the original bullshit into cogent thought.
If we are saying now that intelligence (more covert ops type) spooks are always manipulating various groups, especially angry opposition groups - I agree with you.
I’m not saying I understand all the connections or anything. Nor am I saying that covert control is the main motivator for these groups. But, funding is funding and influence is influence. I think overall that intelligence services get too much credit for what goes on because of the suspicion that obtains from sneaky behavior. But, hell, who knows? They’re sneaky.
I still think that mystic2311 is not helping your argument. Acutally, I think it more now than before.
Funny use of logic, that.
Actually, there is an alternate explanation.
- I present radical truths.
- Others too narrowminded, prejudiced, or in denial refuse to consider these truths.
- I don’t buckle under the weight of their denials.
- Unable to intimidate me by intellectual violence, they resort to questioning my sanity.
- I do a happy dance and declare victory.
mystic, some questions:
Just because something is “radical” does not mean it is true.
Agreed?
Can you give me an example of a conspiracy you think is unfounded? (eg. David Icke’s belief that most world leaders are actually flesh-eating lizards). Why don’t you believe this: does evidence have anything to do with it?
What is your opinion of those people who believe that the government can control people minds via the use of “mind-rays”, and protect themselves appropriately?
I ask again: Do you assert that 9/11 was a conspiracy? If so, I suggest you start a new thread, posting your evidence for such a claim. (If you wish to follow the reasoning of Thierry Meyssen, he has been thoroughly debunked on snopes)
Just because something is radical doesn’t mean it is false, either.
There are lots of people on SDMB who believe that the government can control people’s thoughts with mind-rays. They are the people who are always telling me to put my tinfoil hat back on.
9-11 was a conspiracy; that much is beyond dispute. The interesting question is, was it a conspiracy of Osam Ben Laden and Al-Qaeda (which even the head of the FBI admits there is no evidence) or was it a conspiracy of some other group. I would think that SDMBers who are truly skeptical and interested in finding out the truth would be seriously questioning the evidence which the mainstream media have presented to us (which is more full of holes than Swiss cheese), and not spend so much time attacking people like me who are not afraid to question the official story. Snopes has not debunked Thierry Meyssen at all, in fact the explanations snopes offers are ridiculous.
This thread started as CIA control of the media. Everything I have posted is consistent with that topic. There is overwhelming evidence of CIA control of the media, and 9-11 looks so obviously like one of their black ops, it seems clear that they are behind 9-11.
I guess I missed the vote where we elected you threadmaster. Why don’t you start a thread presenting your theory that Osama ben Laden was behind 9-11? Good luck, there is no evidence for it.
Sincerely, a true skeptic
You failed to answer the interesting question: Is there any conspiracy you think is unfounded?
Is David Icke correct about the shape-shifting lizard people who rule the planet?