TimeTraveler

The war on drugs really doesn't exist. The 700 or so billion dollars of drug money that flows through our country is vital to our economy. Originally the CIA probably only had intentions of hurting the black communities back in the day, but they created a monster and instead of slowly killing it they keep feeding it because it helps keep our economy strong. I mean who cares about kids ODing or so many addicted to drugs, I mean at least we still have the most important thing..... money. /Sarcasm off

Just another case and point on how the poor and middle class suffer to keep the upper class strong, with the coordination of the government of course.

/Ducks the flame fest that is incoming.

I am going to concede. I have been to busy to make any posts. Maybe at a later time we can continue.

So, congratulations.

Hope it's true, but considering how much this type of information has been falsified to create inflated market prices, particularly by Saudi Arabia, I highly doubt it is true.

I think its $4,000 and still available, I will have to look that up.

Well okay, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't just flip to the back of this important, scholarly work and type in whatever source Professor Ruppert lists there.

Like I have said a few times, the stuff I posted is not from his book.

Thanks for following-up on that -- clearly my memory was flawed. So we modify your claim above from "PDB not released" to "where are the missing pages?" Understood.

No. The PDB was not released, only a page and a half, that leaves 10 pages absent. I would call that not released.

Sorry for not being more in-depth, just been busy the last couple days.

I'm not interested in hearsay. I'm interested in Ruppert's source. Presumably he has an bibliography and/or citations page of some kind in the back of the book, does he not? I don't care if it's written-only; I'm perfectly capable of using a library.

 

What I want to know is whether he got this information from a reliable, independent, objective source, or if he made it up out of thin air (or something in-between).

 

I looked at the first page of the links you provided from your Google search. The only one I saw from a reliable news source was a BBC story about mistaken identity, which I vaguely recalled hearing about. If Ruppert thinks these guys had plastic surgery then this doesn't even pass the stink test -- if you're going to go to that kind of length, you'd at least change the guy's name!

 

You made it sound like this was fully documented and known to the public, but that does not appear to be the case. Common sense suggests that if they were alive we'd know it by now, because it would be the biggest news story of the century, so you need to overcome common sense with documentation and evidence. So let's see Ruppert's source, please.

As I stated above these are not Ruppert arguements. These are some things I am aware of, and was aware of before I read his book.

I think the first place I heard anything about this was on msnbc within a week after the 19 hijackers names were released to the press. Mahamed Atta's father claimed his son was still alive and he had talked to him the night before his name was dropped as the lead man in the mission.

In addition, please remember that I've also asked you to cite his source for the allegation that the White House edited Richard Clarke's book. I would like to know more about this, as I don't recall hearing about it before.

I remember seeing this on the news, I will try to find a source to verify it.

I've seen it on TV, haven't you? I'm confused by this argument. It's obviously out there, since we're talking about it. It's discussed extensively in the 9/11 Commission Report. I don't understand the problem.

I don't know what you saw but what I saw was Condi Rice testifying under oath and being cornered about this report as she tried to stumble her way out of it without answering the questions directly.

The panel gets 5 minutes each to ask questions, Condi does an amazing job of stalling and swaggering the questions to eat up more time and not answer them directly. This is before any of the PDB was declassified.

Here is a piece of the transcript:

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, COMMISSION MEMBER: Good morning, Dr. Rice.

 

RICE: Good morning.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Nice to see you again.

 

RICE: Nice to see you.

 

BEN-VENISTE: I want to ask you some questions about the August 6, 2001, PDB. We had been advised in writing by CIA on March 19, 2004, that the August 6 PDB was prepared and self-generated by a CIA employee. Following Director Tenet's testimony on March 26 before us, the CIA clarified its version of events, saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the August 6 PDB.

 

Now, you have said to us in our meeting together earlier in February, that the president directed the CIA to prepare the August 6 PDB.

 

The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well-documented. And Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well-documented.

 

You acknowledged to us in your interview of February 7, 2004, that Richard Clarke told you that al Qaeda cells were in the United States.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6, of the existence of al Qaeda cells in the United States?

 

RICE: First, let me just make certain...

 

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited...

 

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important...

 

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president...

 

RICE: ... that I also address...

 

It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you...

 

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will...

 

BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

 

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

 

First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president -- and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda's operations.

 

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum -- I remember it as being only a line or two -- that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.

 

Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?

 

And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

 

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

 

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

 

Now, the...

 

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

 

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...

 

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...

 

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

 

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

 

RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

 

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

 

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Now, you knew by August 2001 of al Qaeda involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, is that correct? You knew that in 1999, late '99, in the millennium threat period, that we had thwarted an al Qaeda attempt to blow up Los Angeles International Airport and thwarted cells operating in Brooklyn, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts.

 

As of the August 6 briefing, you learned that al Qaeda members have resided or traveled to the United States for years and maintained a support system in the United States.

 

And you learned that FBI information since the 1998 blind sheikh warning of hijackings to free the blind sheikh indicated a pattern of suspicious activity in the country up until August 6 consistent with preparation for hijackings. Isn't that so?

 

RICE: Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?

 

BEN-VENISTE: Well, did you not -- you have indicated here that this was some historical document. And I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6 that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations -- not historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full field investigations against al Qaeda cells, that preparations were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States?

 

RICE: What the August 6 PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...

 

BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.

 

RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...

 

BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.

 

RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB -- exceptional access. But let me address your question.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.

 

RICE: May I address the question, sir?

 

The fact is that this August 6 PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al Qaeda inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.

 

This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do -- speculative, much of it -- in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.

 

RICE: It had a number of discussions of -- it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States -- Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way.

 

And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.

 

Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Well, if you are willing...

 

RICE: Now, we had already taken...

 

BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.

 

Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.

 

There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?

 

RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring.

 

But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.

 

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

 

RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

 

BEN-VENISTE: We have explored that and we will continue to with respect to the muscularity and the specifics of those efforts.

 

The president was in Crawford, Texas, at the time he received the PDB, you were not with him, correct?

 

RICE: That is correct.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Now, was the president, in words or substance, alarmed or in any way motivated to take any action, such as meeting with the director of the FBI, meeting with the attorney general, as a result of receiving the information contained in the PDB?

 

RICE: I want to repeat that when this document was presented, it was presented as, yes, there were some frightening things -- and by the way, I was not at Crawford, but the president and I were in contact and I might have even been, though I can't remember, with him by video link during that time.

 

The president was told this is historical information. I'm told he was told this is historical information and there was nothing actionable in this. The president knew that the FBI was pursuing this issue. The president knew that the director of central intelligence was pursuing this issue. And there was no new threat information in this document to pursue.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Final question, because my time has almost expired.

 

Do you believe that, had the president taken action to issue a directive to the director of CIA to ensure that the FBI had pulsed the agency, to make sure that any information which we know now had been collected was transmitted to the director, that the president might have been able to receive information from CIA with respect to the fact that two al Qaeda operatives who took part in the 9/11 catastrophe were in the United States -- Alhazmi and Mihdhar; and that Moussaoui, who Dick Clarke was never even made aware of, who had jihadist connections, who the FBI had arrested, and who had been in a flight school in Minnesota trying to learn the avionics of a commercial jetliner despite the fact that he had no training previously, had no explanation for the funds in his bank account, and no explanation for why he was in the United States -- would that have possibly, in your view, in hindsight, made a difference in the ability to collect this information, shake the trees, as Richard Clarke had said, and possibly, possibly interrupt the plotters?

 

RICE: My view, Commissioner Ben-Veniste, as I said to Chairman Kean, is that, first of all, the director of central intelligence and the director of the FBI, given the level of threat, were doing what they thought they could do to deal with the threat that we faced.

 

There was no threat reporting of any substance about an attack coming in the United States.

 

RICE: And the director of the FBI and the director of the CIA, had they received information, I am quite certain -- given that the director of the CIA met frequently face to face with the president of the United States -- that he would have made that available to the president or to me.

 

I do not believe that it is a good analysis to go back and assume that somehow maybe we would have gotten lucky by, quote, "shaking the trees." Dick Clarke was shaking the trees, director of central intelligence was shaking the trees, director of the FBI was shaking the trees. We had a structural problem in the United States.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Did the president meet with the director of the FBI? RICE: We had a structural problem in the United States, and that structural problem was that we did not share domestic and foreign intelligence in a way to make a product for policymakers, for good reasons -- for legal reasons, for cultural reasons -- a product that people could depend upon.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Did the president meet with the director of...

 

KEAN: Commissioner, we got to move on...

 

BEN-VENISTE: ... the FBI between August 6 and September 11?

 

KEAN: ... to Commissioner Fielding.

 

RICE: I will have to get back to you on that. I am not certain.

Following this the PDB was declared declassified. What you were not told is the declassified version was 1 1/2 pages. However the original version was 11 1/2 pages. So where did the 10 missing pages go?

The problem is when you post a link to a source people try to discredit it because of the sources name, not by the material contained within the report. In this case its all over, I think it has gotten attention in most all media outlets.

Anywho here is a link to 72,000 articles about it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=9%2F11+hijackers+still+alive&btnG=Google+Search

Pangloss,

Sometimes you have to crawl before you can walk.

What I said I will establish in my last post does not suggest complicity. But it needs to be understood and established for evidence that will presented after.

But I posted that so you could fill me in on what parts you already knew about so I don't end up showing you evidence your already aware of. Your supposed to read my mind and know that kind of stuff since I forgot to say it in that post.

Pangloss, like I said what I posted above was not evidence even mentioned in Rupperts book, his evidence is not soft like the above evidence. It's just a couple quick obvious things I came up with off the top of my head.

Irrelevent. The document was released by the National Security Advisor in sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission (on live television, as I recall).

Irrelevant?

The document was not released on live television, the document has never been releasesd. 1 and a half of the 11 and a half pages were declassified. And that came after Condi Rices testimony.

What evidence would that be? Cite Ruppert's sources please.

It's all over, there has been several different reports about it even in the msm. From eye witness accounts of seeing them, to some of them being caught on tape, to friends recieving phone calls from them and so on. Do a search on google, I'm sure you will find alot of reports on it.

Like I said, this stuff has nothing to do with the arguement or the allegations, its just some evidence thats available to everyone that i came up with off the top of my head.

In other words, you cannot provide any evidence that the administration was complicit in the 9/11 event--correct?

Plenty. 600+ pages worth in Crossing the Rubicon.

Or much more softer evidence thats not even mentioned in Crossing the Rubicon.

#1) President Bush oppressed the making of a 9/11 commission for 14 months.

#2) President Bush nor Dick Cheney would not testify under oath before the 9/11 panel.

#3) Any and all very important and strong questions were met with "No comment" or "I can't answer that".

#4) Refusal to declassify the Aug 6th PDB titled "bin Laden determined to attack the U.S.".

#5) No mention of the nearly 100 foreign warnings of 9/11 in the 9/11 commission report.

#6) The whitehouse editing of Richard Clarkes book before it went to press.

#7) The evidence that shows that as many as 9 of the 19 hijackers are still alive.

I'm going to stop here but I could keep going. However weak you may think the above evidence is it is still evidence by definition. It could be used in a court of law. This type of stuff is not even mentioned in the book as it is irrelevant evidence, the evidence Mr. Ruppert provides is much stronger, from documents and letters from even within the CIA containing testimony. The book is filled with plenty of testimony, from witnesses inside different divisions of the government, including FEMA, FAA, NORAD, CIA, EIA, AF, and plenty of others. He did his interviews, and a hell of a job investigating. He dug deep, deeper than I have seen anyone dig, deeper than the 9/11 commission by far.

And like I said, it's convincing, not proof but enough for a legal trial by any accounts. If someone was murdered on the streets and this much evidence was compiled on suspects involved the Bush administration would be in court. But us civilians are not protected by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. But in this case if the suspects were not protected, warrants would be issued and documents would be confiscated. But thats not possible in our government because they are above the law, which is sad because this country was founded on the idea that civilians ran the country through their leaders, but it seems we gave that up along time ago.

Sounds good.

What I want to first do is establish what PROMIS technology is, what it is designed to do, what it is capable of doing, who uses it and why, that it is used and incorporated in government organizations and systems. Then I want to establish that "injects" were inserted by use of this technology into the FAA's radar system, which caused major confusion and severly hindered the counter measures of allowing our defensive mechanisms to defend us.

You claim to have read the book.

 

Show me the proof of his allegations.

If you want to see the evidence to support his allegations you have to read the book. Or piece it together from his website, although it's much more organized in the book.

Hey Pangloss,

I did not have time to make that post yesterday, got a break in the weather so it's time to get busy landscaping my yard. But I think I will start here with PROMIS technology. Here's a couple links, I'll check back tonight or tomorrow:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml Part 1

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml Part 2

I vote for YT, he's a survivalist. After Bush gets done destroying everything we will need survivalists to lead the way.

You make claims that the book is just "unanswered questions" "speculations" and "allegations".

Yet you have not read the book.

You make claims like:

His argument was ruled out because the 9/11 commission showed the premise of his book to be false.

Anyone who has read the book, whether they come to the conclusion that he is wrong or right, understands how completely false this statement is.

But as yet, you have not presented any evidence that the administration was complicit in the events of 9/11.

I have already stated, read the book. The evidence is there, I can't post over 600 pages plus over 1000 footnotes on this site. I could sum it up to make the case which still would take weeks maybe months.

It's silly for you to say how baseless his arguement is when you have not even heard it.

I'm getting the impression your just enjoying the conflict and controversy of this whole discussion.

But those things are nothing but allegations.

 

You do know the difference between allegation and fact' date=' do you not? [/quote']

 

Allegations backed up with evidence, some hard evidence, some softer evidence. Doesn't matter, you say the 9/11 commission was to investigate government complicity. Well... they didn't do a very good job, they didn't investigate allegations, not many anyways. The same people who fought for 14 months to get a panel to investigate are the same people still fighting and furious that hardly any of their questions got answered. The core of those people are the family members of victims.

 

I do understand the difference between allegation and fact, but do you understand there is very little fact in this matter, even in the 9/11 commission report? The commission report is based upon evidence, conjecture and testimony, as is Ruppert's book. The difference is Ruppert has asked the questions and searched through the documents behind the allegations and came up with disturbing answers, whereas the panel didn't even confront these allegations, it wasn't their purpose.

Interesting links Rebel, thanks.

Have fun with what? That? That's just wild conjecture, exactly the sort of thing I'm not interested in debating. I hope TT understands that.

I'll muster a post up probably for tomorrow, any preferance as to where we start?

When you have read it all, then you can compare it to Ruppert's book and judge which testimony you find the most convincing.

Yep, have been. Whats interesting however is that much of whats in the book isn't investigated in the commission report. Such things as government money laundering, CIA training of terrorists, CIA drug trafficing complicity, business relations with Saudi's and Pakistani inteligence (ISI) and their connections with Al Qaeda, the loads and loads of warnings from foreign countries, PROMIS technology, insider trading and on and on.

But when you read Rupperts book you can compare the two and decide for yourself as well.

But I already think that, or at least don't have a problem with it.

Okay, I was under the wrong impression as to your opinion about a second investigation.

What I'm offering you here is not a chance to produce more circumstantial evidence that suggests that further investigation might be a good idea, but rather a chance to produce evidence that the government was actually complicit in 9/11.

Okay. Sounds fair.

Have you read the 9/11 report?

Most of it.

Did you read those UNSC resolutions and those UNSC reports that I linked you to?

Some. Not sure what those have to do with this.

If you had, you might understand why this Ruppert is nothing more than an opportunist who is feeding on one of the greatest tradgeties in our time....

I'm not going to bite. Just let it go, we have both stated our opinions, just agree that we disagree and move on.

I'm not sure the debate we're proposing will let you sleep easier, because it seems to me that the problem your having is one of faith, and the "evidence" only seems compelling because it's not challengable.

I think you have me wrong, it has nothing to do with faith. I don't "believe" it's possible in the sense of faith, so I guess it's more that I "consider" it possible, and it deserves serious investigation.

You'd say something, and I would respond with "cite his source", to which you would respond with silence. Or you'll convey a circumstantial point (violating the rules of the debate), to which I will respond, "demonstrate how this proves collusion", for which you will have no reply either.

I don't think I would have a problem citing his sources, he does an awesome job of citing them. If by circumstanstial point you mean saying something like "if this was like this, then this could have been like this and this might have happened." there is none of that. But I'm not trying to make this a debate either, rather a discussion, where you can show me flaws or holes, and I can display parts of the evidence.

In short, all I'm doing here is providing the critical thinking you should have already done before drawing the conclusion you've drawn. (You need to stop saying you haven't drawn any conclusions, by the way, because you keep going on to indicate that you've done exactly that. You're not splitting that hair very effectively at all.)

I have done plenty of critical thinking on this, and I have come to a conclusion. There needs to be another investigation. I have not said I know for a fact anyone is guilty, nor do I. There could be a logical explination, but I have not seen it.

So in short, I'm not trying to offend you -- if you want to believe that, by all means, more power to you.

I don't believe that you have. You may have taken a few small jabs but no biggie. I enjoy discussion with you, even if we disagree sometimes. Thats the whole point of coming to message boards. To talk to people about stuff. Some people enjoy attacking people, but I don't think you do, nor have you offended me really.

From my point of view, it would be like trying to convert a True Believer.

Like I said before I think you got the wrong impression.

If you desire my participation, the onus is on you to demonstrate that you have something more than unanswered and unanswerable (on our part) allegations. (If you don't, no biggie, I won't think any less of you.)

Your participation is up to you. I will admit that some evidence will fall in the unanswered and unanswerable allegations, as some answers fall behind the shroud of classified information that we will probably not see for years and years, if ever. But thats only some.

The point would be only for us to lay out some evidence, discuss it and decide if it all of it adds up to deserve a serious investigation.

So it's up to you.

Nooooooooo, you have not.

 

You have offered speculation and conjecture born out of the furtile imagination of someone who wanted to write a book for profit.

Well since you have already judged the book by its cover and will not read it, and will not consider it anything more than speculation and conjecture lets just end it here. We are obviously not going to agree. I have read the book, from cover to cover, some chapters twice, and my opinion he supports and backs up what he says pretty well. In your opinion he wants money, he's just speculating and it's not worth reading. So lets leave it at that.

I have one glaring anomaly i would like explanation of.In previous documentaries the plane that the heroic passengers made crash over pensylvania.It was the finding of those documentaries' date=' crash investigators said that the debris was spread over too large an area to be a crash.On appearence it looked like an explosion in flight.

 

How odd then that very recently your secretary of defence in a TV interview gave reference to the plane being 'shot down'.Before correcting himself,are we to assume that it was a simple slip of the tongue.Or something else.[/quote']

 

I don't know much about this particular case, I have heard that they found debri from the plane over a hill, in a lake over 600 meters away. Some have said the debri was all small lightweight stuff that the wind blew there from the crash site, others have argued that the debri was way to large for that to be possible and the only logical explination of the debri getting that far away is if the plane actually blew up in the air.

 

Either way I'm not really sure how that matters, besides the fact that if it was shot down then someone would have been lying, and I can't think of any logical reason to lie about that. If the plane was shot down it would have been the right thing to do to prevent any other buildings and more people from being killed. That plane could have been headed for the whitehouse or the pentagon.

 

But like I said I don't know much of the details of that arguement, its not mentioned in Mr. Rupperts book and I have not looked into it much.

 

Or what about your president giving an interview saying he seen the first plane hit on the news...it wasnt on the news until the next day.When amatuer film was presented to the media.

 

I agree it is strange that he said that, but it doesn't mean anything by itself. It has been suggested that what he had seen was computer simulation of the war games that involved live fly exercises involving a mock situation of an aircraft being used as a missile. No one has been able to say whether computer simulation of the war games excercises exist, but I don't see why it wouldn't.

 

But I dunno, its a mystery.

The key word in your post is REASONABLE.

 

So far, I have seen no reasonable evidence to suggest that the current administration was complicit in the events of 9/11.

I have offered it to you, its in a 600 page book. A book that you claim is written purely for money and by someone who is not credible. I understand that opinion, but that is your opinion and I do not share it. I don't believe his research is for money, nor do I believe he is not credible. And you have shown no conclusive evidence to support that hypothesis.

The evidence is too thick to post it all here, I'm going to attempt to get small pieces of it down in another thread but it will take time and alot of steps. If you think its complete nonsense and hogwash, don't read it, ignore it. I'm not here to offend anyone, and if you feel I have offended you then I apologize.

Really.

 

Okay.

 

What (specifically) do you feel was contained in the above post (post #1) that you would consider to be "evidence"?

 

And what (specifically) do you feel that it is evidence of? Not "that the government was collusive"' date=' I mean specifically what you believe that means they were actually doing that is evidence of collusion with the terrorists.

 

Note that you used the word "evidence". I expect you, therefore, to either (a) adhere to the rules of evidence, or (b) choose a different word.

 

What I'm looking for from you here is something along these lines:

 

"Artifact #264 indicates markings of an unknown origin. I believe this indicates proof that aliens landed in Roswell in 1947."

 

As opposed to something along these lines:

 

"Nobody was actually looking at the sky on that fateful day in Roswell in 1947. Therefore I believe this is evidence that aliens landed."

 

The key word here is "specific". Where-there's-smoke-there's-fire arguments carry [i']zero[/i] weight with me. You can storm the castle all you want -- more power to you -- but you'll be storming it on your own.

Thats a fair a reasonable request. And I will adhere to it, but I need your help in guiding the direction of this thread. Both you and I, and anyone else who participates in this thread need to be objective and consider both sides. Put it this way, I would sleep easier if I knew this theory was wrong. But, I cannot dismiss it because in a crazy way it makes alot of sense.

So what I propose is lets look at the evidence and information scientifically but also investigatively, because I think we can agree that in the case of an investigation, especially mass murder, there is relatively little scientific fact unless forensic science is involved; in this case there was none.

So what we need to establish is what we consider "evidence", "fact" and "speculation/opinion". We also need to determine a beginning point as a platform to begin this "investigation" or "discussion". Do you have any preferances on a starting platform?

As long as this doesn't turn into an insult/flame fest and remains a calm and rationale discussion I will be happy.