"No Planes Hit The Twin Towers" claims ex-CIA agent

[aintforever]

Hold up a second; I didn't start the thread or knowingly put forward a "planes were not airliners" theory. Can you let me know the origin of your point?

 

What is your theory then?

[Guided Missile]

I would like to thank all the people involved in the setting up and maintenance of this website, for all the good work they have done, in providing the care in the community, so many posters on this thread obviously need. The only thing that concerns me is there is a small chance that one of them sits next to me at St. Mary's.

 

Scary...

[CB Fry]

Hehe. Cherry-picking is probably more appropriate.

 

I link a forum, say it's a good resource - but also say I've had nothing to do with the content.

 

On this thread, I have provided my own content, frequently taking the time to address the specific "man in the pub" jizz that prematurely dribbles out of your mouth.

 

You've elected to go to a public forum that I've linked, deciding for the purposes of your argument that I endorse 100% everything on the site, then attempt to ascribe other people's opinions to me based on my broad statement that the forum as a whole was a good resource.

 

I feel the only positive contribution you've made here is to the double glazing industry. I've written excitedly to them this morning, sharing the exciting news that we've finally found something more transparent than glass.

 

Maybe go on that forum with your little self - help book and call out all the strawmen, cherry picking and complete solutions before you endorse it. I reckon there's a few.

 

And please do keep trying to belittle my opinions as "Man in the pub", carry on. Because man in the pub kinda outranks "freak on the Internet", especially those who just love to speculate that innocent victims of terrorism are "crisis actors".

 

My " jizz" beats your ill informed strawman bile hands down, every time.

[pap]

Maybe go on that forum with your little self - help book and call out all the strawmen, cherry picking and complete solutions before you endorse it. I reckon there's a few.

 

And please do keep trying to belittle my opinions as "Man in the pub", carry on. Because man in the pub kinda outranks "freak on the Internet", especially those who just love to speculate that innocent victims of terrorism are "crisis actors".

 

My " jizz" beats your ill informed strawman bile hands down, every time.

 

You've been shot down recently on "US/Israel would never attack own citizens" and "No one has ever come forward". There may be others, but you really don't merit that much effort right now.

 

How's your little project going? You know, the one where you're trawling a site populated with people you hate, in a vain attempt to locate material which you can apply to someone you don't know. I'm really hoping to step up my "freak on the Internet" status, but after seeing the level of dedication others devote, can see a long road ahead of me. Is this sort of thing something you're born with, or is it trainable?

[CB Fry]

You've been shot down recently on "US/Israel would never attack own citizens" and "No one has ever come forward". There may be others, but you really don't merit that much effort right now.

 

How's your little project going? You know, the one where you're trawling a site populated with people you hate, in a vain attempt to locate material which you can apply to someone you don't know. I'm really hoping to step up my "freak on the Internet" status, but after seeing the level of dedication others devote, can see a long road ahead of me. Is this sort of thing something you're born with, or is it trainable?

 

You haven't shot me down on either of those things.

 

No one has ever come forward to back up your Mossad/Govt conspiracy. So no shooting down there - strawman on your part.

 

And the USS liberty is a strawman from 50 years previously with no relation whatsoever to 9/11. One does not prove the other. Another goal for team Strawman.

 

'Tis a sweet little world you and your head live in, and I am sorry because it does feel like kicking away a blind man's stick at times, but when I see you on here trying to pontificate about the nature of argument - accusing others of cherry picking, strawmen and 'demanding complete solutions' then, ya know, I gotta step in.

 

Anyway, those 9/11 victims were all actors, weren't they though?

[pap]

It's weird no one in that room suggested that the US government has never needed to murder hundreds of its own people ahead of its other military interventions.

 

USS Liberty.

 

 

Israeli intelligence on and around 9/11.

Edited 26 May, 2014 by pap

[John Smith]

That post demonstrates very eloquently what reality is up against.

 

I agree, all week end and still no evidence whatsoever that a 'Boeing 767' hit the pentagon. Please try harder. You conspiracy theorists really need to put some effort in, you make pap work so hard, which makes us all think you are trolls, well we know CB Fry is I suppose (quote - WOW, so intellectual and full of explanations, I couldn't even reply with his post as it was too full of holes).

 

I think you need to look up the word stupid in the dictionary bucttotim, looks like your lack of evidence leaves you looking rather stupid - googlemaps = stupid.

[CB Fry]

I agree, all week end and still no evidence whatsoever that a 'Boeing 767' hit the pentagon. Please try harder. You conspiracy theorists really need to put some effort in, you make pap work so hard, which makes us all think you are trolls, well we know CB Fry is I suppose (quote - WOW, so intellectual and full of explanations, I couldn't even reply with his post as it was too full of holes).

 

I think you need to look up the word stupid in the dictionary bucttotim, looks like your lack of evidence leaves you looking rather stupid - googlemaps = stupid.

 

Wow.

[CB Fry]

USS Liberty.

 

 

Israeli intelligence on and around 9/11.

 

Great evidence and in no way strawman. Well done, you.

[buctootim]

I agree, all week end and still no evidence whatsoever that a 'Boeing 767' hit the pentagon. Please try harder. You conspiracy theorists really need to put some effort in, you make pap work so hard, which makes us all think you are trolls, well we know CB Fry is I suppose (quote - WOW, so intellectual and full of explanations, I couldn't even reply with his post as it was too full of holes).

 

I think you need to look up the word stupid in the dictionary bucttotim, looks like your lack of evidence leaves you looking rather stupid - googlemaps = stupid.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.8697646,-77.0555485,1482m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

No witnesses, no cars, no way.

Edited 27 May, 2014 by buctootim

[John Smith]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.8697646,-77.0555485,1482m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

No witnesses, no cars, no way.

 

OK, so won't take you long to find that evidence. Just think of all the time and effort the US are taking over the US Malaysian Missing airlines, well, you'd expect at least that amount of proof that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a Boeing 767. Post in here your analysis of the debris that confirms it was a 767. An engine maybe? Wings? Tail, as we know, from the US government, they wouldn't have been able to have entered the building, so should be on the lawn. Anyway, don't use my evidence, produce your own.

 

Please stop posting googlemaps, I get it, your friends confirm my theory. You have already stated they cannot identify a Boeing 767 flying right above their heads in excess of 500mph. Please provide evidence or admit your consipracy theory is wrong. I mean, shouldn't be this hard, should it?

[buctootim]

OK, so won't take you long to find that evidence. Just think of all the time and effort the US are taking over the US Malaysian Missing airlines, well, you'd expect at least that amount of proof that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a Boeing 767. Post in here your analysis of the debris that confirms it was a 767. An engine maybe? Wings? Tail, as we know, from the US government, they wouldn't have been able to have entered the building, so should be on the lawn. Anyway, don't use my evidence, produce your own.

 

Please stop posting googlemaps, I get it, your friends confirm my theory. You have already stated they cannot identify a Boeing 767 flying right above their heads in excess of 500mph. Please provide evidence or admit your consipracy theory is wrong. I mean, shouldn't be this hard, should it?

 

 

Helpful advice. It was a 757 not a 767. You're the one who thinks it was a 767 that didn't hit the building. Is that more conspiratorial than a 757 not hitting the building?

 

The many witnesses saw a American Airlines plane hitting the Pentagon just after 9.30am on 9/11. The fact you think the crash didn't happen and everybody is a crisis actor / shill / government agent only tells us something about you, not about the facts.

 

The delicious irony thing is that one of my colleagues who witnessed the crash is an lifelong opponent of the US right wing. He spent many years working as an adviser to Ralph Nader (yep go wiki him). There is no-one on the planet less likely to go along with neo-con conspiracy than him. I'm sure many of the other witnesses have similar stories. That's why your fevered internet chat room freedom fighters are so risible. You've done nothing and contributed nothing but know everything.

Edited 27 May, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

Helpful advice. It was a 757 not a 767. You're the one who thinks it was a 767 that didn't hit the building. Is that more conspiratorial than a 757 not hitting the building?

 

The many witnesses saw a American Airlines plane hitting the Pentagon just after 9.30am on 9/11. The fact you think the crash didn't happen and everybody is a crisis actor / shill / government agent only tells us something about you, not about the facts.

 

What's interesting about the Pentagon incident is that apart from five or so frames of footage, there's nowt.

 

This is a plane that was tracked for 50 minutes (according to former Secretary of Transport, confirmed by CNN) and was heading toward the nerve centre of US Defense, after confirmed attacks in New York. No amateur footage, no TV footage, nothing from security cameras, etc - except for the aforementioned blurry frames, which don't really show anything conclusive.

 

Why is there no conclusive footage? How come you're having to rely on eyewitnesses?

[aintforever]

USS Liberty.

 

 

Israeli intelligence on and around 9/11.

 

Interesting that, if true then adds weight to the official theory rather than a US government conspiracy.

 

1. Muslim extremists planning a massive attack on the US - there is bound to be Mossad agents sniffing around everywhere trying to figure out what they were planning.

 

2. If it was one big conspiracy by the US government why were they arresting Israelis all over the place?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Mossad knew what was going to happen and kept quiet as it would aid the Israeli cause no end for the US to have a Peal Harbour moment. None of what was in that video points to it being a US operation, it all points to the opposite.

[pap]

Interesting that, if true then adds weight to the official theory rather than a US government conspiracy.

 

1. Muslim extremists planning a massive attack on the US - there is bound to be Mossad agents sniffing around everywhere trying to figure out what they were planning.

 

2. If it was one big conspiracy by the US government why were they arresting Israelis all over the place?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Mossad knew what was going to happen and kept quiet as it would aid the Israeli cause no end for the US to have a Peal Harbour moment. None of what was in that video points to it being a US operation, it all points to the opposite.

 

What's particularly interesting about that video is the statement during the Israeli TV interview. "We were there to document the event", which implies foreknowledge.

 

There are too many other oddities that day that can't be achieved by either AQ or Israelis alone, like Cheney's stand-down order as the plane was approaching the Pentagon. That's why I don't really buy 1) as an explanation.

 

The logic behind 2) is predicated on "everyone is in on it". Assuming the more logical position, "not everyone is in on it", why wouldn't counter-intelligence arrest foreign spies?

[John Smith]

Helpful advice. It was a 757 not a 767. You're the one who thinks it was a 767 that didn't hit the building. Is that more conspiratorial than a 757 not hitting the building?

 

The many witnesses saw a American Airlines plane hitting the Pentagon just after 9.30am on 9/11. The fact you think the crash didn't happen and everybody is a crisis actor / shill / government agent only tells us something about you, not about the facts.

 

The delicious irony thing is that one of my colleagues who witnessed the crash is an lifelong opponent of the US right wing. He spent many years working as an adviser to Ralph Nader (yep go wiki him). There is no-one on the planet less likely to go along with neo-con conspiracy than him. I'm sure many of the other witnesses have similar stories. That's why your fevered internet chat room freedom fighters are so risible. You've done nothing and contributed nothing but know everything.

 

You still seem to be struggling, and like most conspiracy theorists, cannot backup your ridiculous claims with 'evidence'. Come on, it's taken you 2 days to identify it as a 757 that never hit the pentagon. Please, with all those thousands of witnesses, multitudes of cctv and 60 tonnes of debris, please provide one shred of factual evidence that backs your outlandish theory that a boeing '757' hit the Pentagon. I'm guessing you won't be back soon, unless it's to through insults at people that don't believe you're ridiculous theories!

 

try again 1 out of 10 for effort so far.

[Gemmel]

You still seem to be struggling, and like most conspiracy theorists, cannot backup your ridiculous claims with 'evidence'. Come on, it's taken you 2 days to identify it as a 757 that never hit the pentagon. Please, with all those thousands of witnesses, multitudes of cctv and 60 tonnes of debris, please provide one shred of factual evidence that backs your outlandish theory that a boeing '757' hit the Pentagon. I'm guessing you won't be back soon, unless it's to through insults at people that don't believe you're ridiculous theories!

 

try again 1 out of 10 for effort so far.

 

The bit that I get stuck on is the need for a plane at all? As I said to Pap, if we assume that is was indeed the US government against their own people with the intention of scaring everybody, what do the planes achieve?

 

Blowing up the pentagon and twin towers would have had the same impact (I'm sure the conspiracy theorists suggest that the twin towers were stocked with explosives) so why the need for planes?

[pap]

The bit that I get stuck on is the need for a plane at all? As I said to Pap, if we assume that is was indeed the US government against their own people with the intention of scaring everybody, what do the planes achieve?

 

Blowing up the pentagon and twin towers would have had the same impact (I'm sure the conspiracy theorists suggest that the twin towers were stocked with explosives) so why the need for planes?

 

I've fielded this before:-

 

That's a fair question. Best guess is to obscure the true means of destruction. If controlled demolition were suspected, any investigation would uncover a trail which would eventually lead to the truth. Under the directed energy weapon thesis, the buildings would just appear to explode for no good reason. The planes are a decoy.

 

Broadly:-

 

1) To avoid an investigation

2) To be able to immediately identify perpetrators (and thus, follow-up actions)

3) Vanish evidence

[buctootim]

I've fielded this before:-

 

That's a fair question. Best guess is to obscure the true means of destruction. If controlled demolition were suspected, any investigation would uncover a trail which would eventually lead to the truth. Under the directed energy weapon thesis, the buildings would just appear to explode for no good reason. The planes are a decoy.

 

Broadly:-

 

1) To avoid an investigation

2) To be able to immediately identify perpetrators (and thus, follow-up actions)

3) Vanish evidence

 

So its a conspiracy when there are planes (to hide the bombs ala 9/11); a conspiracy when there are no planes (ala the Omaha bombing) and a conspiracy when there is a shooting of a left wing (Martin Luther King), middle (JFK) and right wing (Reagan) figure?

 

Any occasions when **** just happens?

[pap]

So its a conspiracy when there are planes (to hide the bombs ala 9/11); a conspiracy when there are no planes (ala the Omaha bombing) and a conspiracy when there is a shooting of a left wing (Martin Luther King), middle (JFK) and right wing (Reagan) figure?

 

Any occasions when **** just happens?

 

I take it from your "expansion" that you have no basic problem with my rationale, then?

[buctootim]

I take it from your "expansion" that you have no basic problem with my rationale, then?

 

Of course I have. You don't need to massacre your own people to justify greater military spending or invading people - you just do it. Ask Reagan and Bush senior - big military build up, Grenada, Noriega, Iraq etc. The whole premise is bonkers because it makes no sense and is far too dangerous. Presidents get impeached for blowjobs. Thatcher was nearly impaled by Clive Ponting over the Belgrano - but Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Snowden know nothing about conspiracies at all, ever? Whys that then given they have such massive access. They were motivated to go public over privacy concerns and Guantanamo. Odd that nobody has ever been troubled enough by massacring 3,000 Americans to come forward.

Edited 27 May, 2014 by buctootim

[CB Fry]

Of course I have. You don't need to massacre your own people to justify greater military spending or invading people - you just do it. Ask Reagan and Bush senior - big military build up, Grenada, Noriega, Iraq etc. The whole premise is bonkers because it makes no sense and is far too dangerous. Presidents get impeached for blowjobs. Thatcher was nearly impaled by Clive Ponting over the Belgrano - but Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Snowden know nothing about conspiracies at all, ever? Whys that then given they have such massive access. They were motivated to go public over privacy concerns and Guantanamo. Odd that nobody has ever been troubled enough by massacring 3,000 Americans to come forward.

 

Yes but USS Liberty is proof enough that it definitely all happened.

 

Complete solution, case closed.

[pap]

Of course I have. You don't need to massacre your own people to justify greater military spending or invading people - you just do it. Ask Reagan and Bush senior - big military build up, Grenada, Noriega, Iraq etc. The whole premise is bonkers because it makes no sense and is far too dangerous. Presidents get impeached for blowjobs. Thatcher was nearly impaled by Clive Ponting over the Belgrano - but Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks and Snowden know nothing about conspiracies at all, ever?

 

Expansion again. Try constraining yourself to the point I'm making at the time, which was a response to Gemmel.

 

He wanted to know why planes were used. I provided an answer, whereupon you (twice) immediately change subject to something you can handle.

 

Earlier, I asked why eyewitnesses are the best evidence you have (they are, the physical evidence provokes more questions than answers) for the existence of a passenger airline in the attack at the Pentagon, known to be coming in for 50 minutes. You avoided that too.

 

It's a shame, because some of the "chaff" questions you're throwing out really are quite interesting, particularly Manning and Snowden.

[buctootim]

Expansion again. Try constraining yourself to the point I'm making at the time, which was a response to Gemmel.

 

He wanted to know why planes were used. I provided an answer, whereupon you (twice) immediately change subject to something you can handle.

 

Earlier, I asked why eyewitnesses are the best evidence you have (they are, the physical evidence provokes more questions than answers) for the existence of a passenger airline in the attack at the Pentagon, known to be coming in for 50 minutes. You avoided that too.

 

It's a shame, because some of the "chaff" questions you're throwing out really are quite interesting, particularly Manning and Snowden.

 

Ha! Poor effort. So pointing out how your argument is inconsistent and at odds with other 'conspiracies' or world events is changing the subject. Im not sure why I allowed myself to get dragged into discussing with you. Sometimes I see a flicker of insight and balance - and then its gone again.

Edited 27 May, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

Ha! Poor effort. So pointing out how your argument is inconsistent and at odds with other 'conspiracies' or world events is changing the subject. Im not sure why I allowed myself to get dragged into discussing with you. Sometimes I see a flicker of insight and balance - and then its gone again.

 

If you say so, Tim.

 

We'll let those questions you dodged remain unanswered, eh?

[buctootim]

Yes but USS Liberty is proof enough that it definitely all happened.

 

Complete solution, case closed.

 

Its bizarre. I find it interesting as a case study, the missing chapter from 'The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat' but as an rational argument where the evidence wins, nothing.

[pap]

Yes but USS Liberty is proof enough that it definitely all happened.

 

Complete solution, case closed.

 

Its bizarre. I find it interesting as a case study, the missing chapter from 'The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat' but as an rational argument where the evidence wins, nothing.

 

CB Fry claimed that the US had never needed to murder its own citizens to get into a war, yet the USS Liberty was ordered into a spot by US Command so it could be destroyed by unmarked Israeli forces, all to get into war with Egypt.

 

I never claimed USS Liberty proves everything; I was addressing a specific point. CB just chose to misrepresent it, clear enough for anyone reading the thread.

 

This is unrelated, but one of the best things about these threads is seeing the bromance between buctootim and CB. It's not quite as cute as finishing each other's sentences, but on the Flower Estates, there was a rumour that went round concerning two of the local lads. Around the time topless sunbathing was a new thing, they would go to the back bedroom of the house and check out their female neighbour sunbathing in the next garden, wánking each other off. This is more like that.

Edited 27 May, 2014 by pap

[buctootim]

CB Fry claimed that the US had never needed to murder its own citizens to get into a war, yet the USS Liberty was ordered into a spot by US Command so it could be destroyed by unmarked Israeli forces, all to get into war with Egypt.

 

Of course. A USS logistics ship attacked in international waters by mistake whilst flying the stars and stripes and for which the Israelis admitted liability and paid $30m compensation proves everything - especially since the US entered the war, err, um.

One of the best things about these threads is seeing the bromance between buctootim and CB. It's not quite as cute as finishing each other's sentences. On the Flower Estates, there was a rumour that went round concerning two of the local lads, around the time topless sunbathing was a thing. Apparently, they would go to the back bedroom of the house and check out their female neighbour sunbathing in the next garden, wánking each other off. This is more like that.

 

Course it is. Ive never met CB Fry or Verbal and we would probably have little in common - but its clear from their posts they have worked at reasonably senior level- have had access to people who make policy and decisions. They understand how the world actually works. You and John Smith, not so much. You clearly have some kind of cognitive deficit, interesting as a yardstick to measure things against - but not as a serious advocate for anything meaningful.

[CB Fry]

CB Fry claimed that the US had never needed to murder its own citizens to get into a war, yet the USS Liberty was ordered into a spot by US Command so it could be destroyed by unmarked Israeli forces, all to get into war with Egypt.

 

I never claimed USS Liberty proves everything; I was addressing a specific point. CB just chose to misrepresent it, clear enough for anyone reading the thread.

 

This is unrelated, but one of the best things about these threads is seeing the bromance between buctootim and CB. It's not quite as cute as finishing each other's sentences. On the Flower Estates, there was a rumour that went round concerning two of the local lads, around the time topless sunbathing was a thing. Apparently, they would go to the back bedroom of the house and check out their female neighbour sunbathing in the next garden, wánking each other off. This is more like that.

 

USS Liberty is you using an unproven conspiracy as proof for another unproven conspiracy. Go you. Strawman.

 

And pretty sure there is a sub section on your little self help list that covers off your p iss weak character attack on two people you ain't never met (or have met each other). I imagine if I did that to you you you'd have a little quote for me all ready to go.

 

You are pretty good at the woe is me dying swan act, but funny how plain nasty you can be, ain't it?

[pap]

Course it is. Ive never met CB Fry or Verbal and we would probably have little in common - but its clear from their posts they have worked at reasonably senior level- have had access to people who make policy and decisions. They understand how the world actually works. You and John Smith, not so much. You clearly have some kind of cognitive deficit, interesting as a yardstick to measure things against - but not as a serious advocate for anything meaningful.

 

Keep up, Tim. Verbal was outed. I know who he is and what he does, and it could absolutely have a bearing on his slavish support for anything establishment, especially his 2004-2007 work.

 

No clue who CB Fry is, but with his people skills and all that, I reckon he's probably self-employed.

 

And don't be coy. Of course you know each other, at least on here. Unfailingly, you're on every single conspiracy thread that pops up on TSW arguing with me. Frankly, I'm amazed that you've devoted so much time to someone with such clear cognitive deficiencies, or the subject in general.

 

 

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

 

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

 

 

[CB Fry]

Keep up, Tim. Verbal was outed. I know who he is and what he does, and it could absolutely have a bearing on his slavish support for anything establishment, especially his 2004-2007 work.

 

No clue who CB Fry is, but with his people skills and all that, I reckon he's probably self-employed.

 

And don't be coy. Of course you know each other, at least on here. Unfailingly, you're on every single conspiracy thread that pops up on TSW arguing with me. Frankly, I'm amazed that you've devoted so much time to someone with such clear cognitive deficiencies, or the subject in general.

 

 

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

 

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

 

 

 

Out comes the self help book!

 

Where's the section called

 

Press the gay button. Witlessly accuse those who disagree of being homosexuals.

[aintforever]

What's particularly interesting about that video is the statement during the Israeli TV interview. "We were there to document the event", which implies foreknowledge.

 

There are too many other oddities that day that can't be achieved by either AQ or Israelis alone, like Cheney's stand-down order as the plane was approaching the Pentagon. That's why I don't really buy 1) as an explanation.

 

The logic behind 2) is predicated on "everyone is in on it". Assuming the more logical position, "not everyone is in on it", why wouldn't counter-intelligence arrest foreign spies?

 

The only thing the evidence in that video (if it is true) suggests is that Mossad possibly knew something in advance and the US were caught with their pants down so went round arresting Israelis in a desperate attempt to figure out what went on and who knew what.

 

Absolutely nothing in there to suggest the US government slaughtered thousands of it's own people. In fact it only suggests the opposite.

 

Until you come up with a one believable possible theory as to how the US government carried it out you will not be taken seriously with your hair-brained ideas.

 

You won't post a theory because you can't.

[pap]

Out comes the self help book!

 

It has been very helpful. Until now, I never realised you were so limited in your approach.

 

Where's the section called

 

Press the gay button. Witlessly accuse those who disagree of being homosexuals.

 

Where did I do that?

 

In one comment, I accused you have having jizz dribbling out of your mouth. For the record, that's your jizz. Auto-sexual, maybe. Homosexual, no.

 

In another, I described a rumour in which two chaps tossed each other off while looking at a female, likening it to the way you Tim get each other off on the conspiracy threads.

[CB Fry]

It has been very helpful. Until now, I never realised you were so limited in your approach.

 

 

 

Where did I do that?

 

In one comment, I accused you have having jizz dribbling out of your mouth. For the record, that's your jizz. Auto-sexual, maybe. Homosexual, no.

 

In another, I described a rumour in which two chaps tossed each other off while looking at a female, likening it to the way you Tim get each other off on the conspiracy threads.

 

The most useful thing about your self help book is that it is basically a list of everything you do.

[pap]

The only thing the evidence in that video (if it is true) suggests is that Mossad possibly knew something in advance and the US were caught with their pants down so went round arresting Israelis in a desperate attempt to figure out what went on and who knew what.

 

Absolutely nothing in there to suggest the US government slaughtered thousands of it's own people. In fact it only suggests the opposite.

 

Until you come up with a one believable possible theory as to how the US government carried it out you will not be taken seriously with your hair-brained ideas.

 

You won't post a theory because you can't.

 

More goading, aintforever?

 

The video is evidence of possible Mossad involvement. There is other evidence of US complicity, such as Cheney's stand-down order.

[pap]

The most useful thing about your self help book is that it is basically a list of everything you do.

 

Well I'm glad we both enjoy it.

 

Expect to see it a lot more.

[jjsaint]

It's very depressing... a Jewish conspiracy... haven't we moved on from this sort of thing?

[Verbal]

Keep up, Tim. Verbal was outed. I know who he is and what he does, and it could absolutely have a bearing on his slavish support for anything establishment, especially his 2004-2007 work.

 

Outed. Well there’s an interesting choice of term. My ‘2004-2007 work’, as you put it, included a film about American Airlines 11. One particular story within that, about a passenger called Daniel Lewin, led to my being accused of being – I quote – an ‘Israeli psy-ops officer’. My home address was published online and my family and I received some very disturbing threats.

 

These people, just like you, saw it as important to ‘out’ me – that is, to make false and libellous allegations that I was in the pay of some inner government ‘ring’...in their case, the Israelis (trans: dirty Jews).

 

You are prone to exactly the same impulses. This is why – despite the fact that a few people on here know who I am – I didn’t want you to know. I find you very strange and irrational. And as we’ve seen recently, there’s good reason for concern about this kind of behaviour.

 

The conspiracy theorists who were making the ‘psy-ops’ accusation were also, of course, vicious anti-semites. You take more care to disguise it, but I suspect you are too – as your truly nasty, and thankfully deleted, post about the Holocaust showed.

 

Your only saving grace is your utter hopelessness - your disengagement from anything that remotely resembles reality.

[Spudders]

I'm travelling for a bit, so in my absence, thought I'd link "Let's Roll".

 

http://letsrollforums.com/index.php

 

Good 9/11 resource, nicely categorised, covering almost every angle.

 

Shouldn't have to say this but none of the content on that site is mine.

Cheers for linking this pap, some very interesting stuff. I've spent hours on there today and there's some fascinating reading.

[pap]

Outed. Well there’s an interesting choice of term. My ‘2004-2007 work’, as you put it, included a film about American Airlines 11. One particular story within that, about a passenger called Daniel Lewin, led to my being accused of being – I quote – an ‘Israeli psy-ops officer’. My home address was published online and my family and I received some very disturbing threats.

 

These people, just like you, saw it as important to ‘out’ me – that is, to make false and libellous allegations that I was in the pay of some inner government ‘ring’...in their case, the Israelis (trans: dirty Jews).

 

You are prone to exactly the same impulses. This is why – despite the fact that a few people on here know who I am – I didn’t want you to know. I find you very strange and irrational. And as we’ve seen recently, there’s good reason for concern about this kind of behaviour.

 

The conspiracy theorists who were making the ‘psy-ops’ accusation were also, of course, vicious anti-semites. You take more care to disguise it, but I suspect you are too – as your truly nasty, and thankfully deleted, post about the Holocaust showed.

 

Your only saving grace is your utter hopelessness - your disengagement from anything that remotely resembles reality.

 

I never outed you, and the only reason I wanted you outed was for a bit of parity and to test something I've long said, that your anonymity was purely a shield to prevent you from ever becoming attributed with this hateful forum character you've created. I still stand by that view - you picked the wrong career for anonymity; your name associated publicly with all your work.

 

However, I'm not at all surprised to learn that someone pegged you for an Israeli agent. You genuinely come across that way on here.

Edited 27 May, 2014 by pap

[Bearsy]

Cheers for linking this pap, some very interesting stuff. I've spent hours on there today and there's some fascinating reading.

 

word, one tower got attacked by those tree-beard things, the other collapsed when golum fell in the crack of doom. Thanks to pap for hooking me up with this ITK

[buctootim]

It's very depressing... a Jewish conspiracy... haven't we moved on from this sort of thing?

 

You'd have thought so by now. Its all hallmark of the American 'truthers' that Pap ingratiates himself with though unfortunately. If you don't go along with 'the Jews done it' you're an Israeli agent in Pap's world.

[pap]

Cheers for linking this pap, some very interesting stuff. I've spent hours on there today and there's some fascinating reading.

 

It has got a decent reputation, and while I do like the Brit-centric and eclectic nature of the DiF forums (the Savile thread is ace), it's nice to see one forum focus so heavily on 9/11.

[pap]

You'd have thought so by now. Its all hallmark of the American 'truthers' that Pap ingratiates himself with though unfortunately. If you don't go along with 'the Jews done it' you're an Israeli agent in Pap's world.

 

Quick! Someone's pointing out that Mossad agents were picked up on 9/11 and that they were "there to document the event".

 

ANTI-SEMITE!!

 

Tim, if you're ordering me a concentration camp uniform, get me a 29" leg. I want to be sure they don't drag under my feet and get caught on my jackboots.

[buctootim]

Quick! Someone's pointing out that Mossad agents were picked up on 9/11 and that they were "there to document the event".

 

ANTI-SEMITE!!

 

Tim, if you're ordering me a concentration camp uniform, get me a 29" leg. I want to be sure they don't drag under my feet and get caught on my jackboots.

 

Actually its because its been a constant refrain in your posts. Verbal used to accuse you of it and I thought it was unfair - but he was right - there is a Jewish angle in nearly everyone of your conspiracies going back years.

[aintforever]

More goading, aintforever?

 

The video is evidence of possible Mossad involvement. There is other evidence of US complicity, such as Cheney's stand-down order.

 

I'm not goading, I genuinely want to hear your theory that pieces together all these bits of circumstantial evidence into one believable sequence of events.

 

If the US government are in the dock you are making a pretty poor case for the prosecution. You have to come up with at least one possible version of events as to how they could have carried it out because at the moment there is not one piece of solid evidence that contradicts the official theory.

[pap]

MP has just joined Spurs, lads. We're all on the main board discussing new managers and things.

 

What the fúck are you still doing here?

[badgerx16]

MP has just joined Spurs, lads. We're all on the main board discussing new managers and things.

 

What the fúck are you still doing here?

 

Classic distraction technique - we must have been getting too close to the truth on here.

[pap]

Classic distraction technique - we must have been getting too close to the truth on here.

 

Not really. Tim was building gently up to call me an anti-semite, citing Verbal's oft-repeated similar claims as evidence. According to Netanyahu, anyone supporting the BDS boycotts is an anti-semite, and he should know, so I was covered on that anyway.

 

aintforever wants me specifically to produce a theory for some reason.

 

I'm more than happy to discuss this, as I did when you asked a reasonable question.

[pap]

Back on-topic, just seen this on my FB feed.

 

http://tellmenow.com/2014/05/video-proof-showing-no-planes-hit-the-wtc-on-911/

 

Pertinent to OP, but I want to see how this fares for a bit before coming to a view.