Verifiable Media Reports on 9/11

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    It's been a common tactic of those who have responded to my posts on 9/11 to declare all my "sources" as unreliable and lacking credibility...to put it nicely. I can understand this some what because some of the websites I use to lift them from (laziness on my part I suppose) have reputations as being "fringe elements" I disagree for the most part but I'm tired of arguing against the same old circluar logic of half informed people.

    So, today I'm posting this...9/11 Cover-up Two-Page Summary.

    And also this... 9/11 Timeline: Ten-Page Summary


    Not so much to have another discussion on 9/11 but just to make the same information that has helped to form my opinion easily available to everyone so you can now read what I've been reading all along directly from the "credible" mainstream sources they came from. Without having to wade through flashing propaganda and ads for books and videos.

    [FONT=&quot] To verify statements, click on links to articles on major media websites [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Join in powerfully building a brighter future for all by spreading the word

    I know some of you won't make it past the header on the website and that's your choice I reckon. No one can force you to become fully informed but I hope you'll at least give it a half hearted attempt. :)

    [/FONT]
     
    #1 poncho, Jun 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2008
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    your source of definition for 'terrorist' is wrong - why should anybody else expect your other sources to be valid?

    terrorist - when I get at Poncho by getting on Hillclimber1's case
    - terrorism is the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against the innocent (lightly armed) in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear - against the innocent NEVER against hard points

    Using bombs against school children is clasic terrorism - attacking fortified points full of armed people is for armies, not terrorists
     
    #2 Ed Edwards, Jun 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2008
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I checked several sources.

    Reminds me of the the mis-quoted 1976 reports that there would be a new ice age. Didn't get noticed until desperate people in 2002 noticed that it was getting hot on the 'Global Warming' front and needed more ammo.

    Reminds me of the propaganda that was developed TEN YEARS after the New King James Version (nKJV) was released. It was hard for anti-new-translation people to find a problem with the nKJV because it was developed to the specifications of anti-new-translation people. So they came down on the symbol on the title page - an ageless symbol of the Blessed Trinity - a symbol used by the publisher (Nelson) not the nKJV translators.

    Ah well, I was a victim of paranoia for like 12-14 years of my life. It really is a waste of time. It was Fundamental Muslim off-the-deep-end killer-minded terrorists that killed people on 9-11-2001 NOT any of the three branches of the USofA government(s).
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I never figured anyone would accept "my sources" as being valid Ed that's why I posted this link, so everyone can go to their cherished "mainstream sources" with just a poke of a finger. Kind of the whole point of this thread.

    From my experience people are too lackadaisical to check sources if it takes more than just one poke of the finger. Which reminds me...could you mumble off a prayer for my finger today Ed? I put a brand new blade in my utility knife a couple days ago and tested the edge on the bone in my right index digit. It's not painful anymore but it still needs protection against infection. I'd appreciate it. That's the finger I normally use to check sources and hold a guitar pick. I can probably go a few days without checking sources but I really need to play my Telecaster this weekend all my other band mates (The Spider Goats) are making fun of me because now instead of picking and grinning I'm picking and grimacing. :eek:

    [​IMG]

    Oh yeah and if you don't like the definition in my signature you can click on the word "terrorism" and seven more definitions will magically appear on your screen. Neat huh? :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #4 poncho, Jun 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 7, 2008
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,301
    Likes Received:
    784
    In 1986 as a Military Policeman in the Marine Corps we went through house to house combat training. We were taught back then that the next war would be in residential neighborhoods and not in the woods. By the logic used in these links they knew we were going into Iraq.


    There is nothing in these links that provide any evidence. There is however a bunch of unnecessary hysteria.
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Oh c'mon now Rev you know as well as I do that before today you've never even seen half the mainstream articles in these links. There isn't anything there that you'd be interested in reading anyway. They deal with factual news reports and not the vast socialist/liberal conspiracy theories you're used to.

    You keep on clicking away partner you're bound to learn something new. :laugh:
     
    #6 poncho, Jun 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 7, 2008
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,301
    Likes Received:
    784

    None of them lead to the conclusions you assert.
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    So then I take it you agree with the 9/11 commission report? Don't answer that Rev it's a trick question because even the authors of the 9/11 commission report doubt the accuracy of it's findings.. :smilewinkgrin:

    BTW these links aren't supposed to "prove" anything. They are just um, historical context. Yeah that's it. Something that seems to be sorely lacking in discussions about 9/11. Most folks here abouts from what I've seen can't seem to remember anything from one news cycle to the next.
     
    #8 poncho, Jun 7, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 7, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...