UN Could Lead New 9/11 Investigation, Says Japanese MP

A recent interview of an FBI agent who guarded Saddam after his capture indicates that Saddam wanted the US , and especially Iran, to believe he had/was building WMDs.

He considered it insurance against another Iran/Iraq war which had cost him tremendous amounts of money/manpower for no real purpose.

If Saddam's intent was to deceive the intelligence communities (US, Brits, Russians, French, etc) then he succeeded, because they all had come to the same conclusions.

It's for this reason that the Dem refrain 'Bush lied' is so ridiculous. To lie is to intend to deceive. Why don't they say 'Saddam lied, people died' ?

Well, because that wouldn't help them win elections, that's why.

0 Replies

farmerman, the government, NIST and FEMA have been caught in a bunch of lies and had to revise their findings a number of times. Finally they admitted they have no explanation and FEMA agreed with the "kooks" by saying "Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." Of course you gotta ignore that. And this, "NIST: "We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse"
On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings.

On September 27th, NIST finally replied.

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".
link

0 Replies

Quote:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse

This is an honest response by the NIST team. They conducted their tests and simulations in accordance with BLP's and arrived at conclusions, some which were consistent with the happenings and one or two which were not. But these, such as a computer model which, based upon the energy expended and the buildings masses, predicted that the planes would not have plowed through the building. This was an error in the dynamics and was corrected and included in an erratum on NISTS' web site.

To admit to errors in calculations but to deny the 911 kooks from having a field day with proposed explosive charges (of which there were no evidence nor environmental taggants like Nitrogen compounds). These larger issues NIST denied to "scholars" requests. Youve failed to read the entire letter and only pulled out a quote which basically admits that, no matter what their models say, wed never be able to fully explain the dropping of WT7. That , in no way is a "cover-up" nor is it a counter conspiracy at work.

Steve Jones has been marginalized so much that any time he gets on TV is something he dearly prays for. Hes just another 911 nutcase.

0 Replies

Heres the entire NIST letter. It, in no way corroborates what blueflame asserts. In fact, it does just the oppositeIF YOUR GONNA QUOTE SOMETHING MAKE SURE IT SUPPORTS YOU FIRST

0 Replies

farmerman, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". That's only NIST's latest report made only after being pressured by the people you put down. First NIST issued a report full of lies, bad science and omissions of evidence. Since then they've revised their story several times. Maybe their "We are unable to provide a full explanation" explanation is good enough for you but millions of Americans and millions more overseas want much more of an explanation than that. That's only common sense at this point. What's questionable is calling them kooks especially when even the government says more research, investigation, and analyses is needed.

0 Replies

Sentana
Thanks for the spelling lesson. I think I posted something about people who try to put down others by correcting spelling and grammar some time ago. If you cant just answer the posting which you understood than why don't you just ignore me and the others that seem to irritate you. Certainly many posters don't make much sense but I try to at least see their views without insulting them. You are a jerk first class but if you want to believe I am some kind of idiot have at it. And you do believe that the people who wonder about 9/11 are stupid because you come across with that attitude even if you don't express it in a straight forward way.

0 Replies

Ive read your link blueflame. Its the one that you purport to be the source of the OOC quote. Its not even close to containing any bad science. I wonder what orifice your head is up?

0 Replies

rabel

Quote:

And you do believe that the people who wonder about 9/11 are stupid

Pretty much. But thats just me. Im fascinated why people are involved making judgement decisions based upon information that theyve gleaned only from some spoon fed URL.

I , at least went and looked at the seismic records and found that JONES WAS A DAMN LIAR. Now my feeling is, if you lie about one thing and make up data, youll do it on other points as well.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

A recent interview of an FBI agent who guarded Saddam after his capture indicates that Saddam wanted the US , and especially Iran, to believe he had/was building WMDs.

Yes, thats interesting. Here is a link I found:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html

Important elements of the story:

"CBS: Hussein claimed he didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq over WMD.
FBI agent says Hussein lied about having WMD to intimidate Iran,
But the Iraqi dictator said he wanted to start the WMD program again, agent said."

So the sheriff walks into the convenience store, the robber says he has a gun and will use it, and the sheriff shoots the robber, it turns out the robber had no gun, so its the sheriff's fault for shooting him, and the sheriff made the whole story up. Thats what the Bush haters want to believe.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If Saddam's intent was to deceive the intelligence communities (US, Brits, Russians, French, etc) then he succeeded, because they all had come to the same conclusions.

Wrong.

0 Replies

farmerman, the bad science is found in the NIST report. Along with numerous lies and deceptions that when brought to their attention forced them to change their story. Finally they concluded they know nuttin and have no explanation. The Jersey Girls and their ilk aint gonna be satisfied with that. And obviously the point of this thread is that the international community has serious questions and want real answers. 911 was an international incident after all. And Bushie used it to lie the world into war. There are serious legal issues involved for Bushie and America. There are war crimes issues. Bushie and his PNAC axis are rightly under a lot of scrutiny.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

By the way, docent is a word which means a teacher or lecturer who is not a permanent staff member, or a guide in a church or a museum. The word you want is "doesn't," which is a contraction of "does not." I mention this because this is not the first time today that i've seen you write "docent" where the word you wanted is "doesn't." It doesn't make you look very intelligent to make such a basic error. It even leads me to question whether or not English is your mother tongue.

Setanta wrote:

"... just a willingness to bully and to attempt to impose on others".

Your hypocrisy is showing again, Set.

0 Replies

So you consider it bullying to defend myself against a witless, lying and semi-literate attack? I'm not surprised.

I see you given up your unfounded claims about "clear evidence of a cover-up" and have moved into personalities mode. That doesn't surprise me, either.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Sentana
Thanks for the spelling lesson. I think I posted something about people who try to put down others by correcting spelling and grammar some time ago. If you cant just answer the posting which you understood than why don't you just ignore me and the others that seem to irritate you. Certainly many posters don't make much sense but I try to at least see their views without insulting them. You are a jerk first class but if you want to believe I am some kind of idiot have at it. And you do believe that the people who wonder about 9/11 are stupid because you come across with that attitude even if you don't express it in a straight forward way.

I did answer you, clown. I only mentioned spelling after i had disposed of your feeble arguments, especially the one in which you lied about what i believe. You say you try to see someone's view without insulting them? Jesus Christ, what do you call it when you refer to me as a jerk? What exactly was involved in making a completely fictional claim about what i do or don't believe.

My remarks have had nothing to do with how people who wonder about September 11th might be characterized. My remarks only pertain to those who claim that they know that the Shrub and Company were criminally complicit in the events of September 11th. The fact that you have lied about what i believe (something of which you are supremely ignorant) and that fact that you now willfully warp the import of what i have actually said, however, shows that you are a liar when you claim that you try to see the views of others without insulting them.

I have not said there were no cover-up; i have said that no one here has provided any evidence to that effect. I have not smeared those who "wonder" about September 11th. I have belittled and ridiculed those who claim they have "proof" that the current administration is criminally complicit in the events of September 11th.

It is certainly no fault of mine if you are incapable of understanding distinctions of that nature. It certainly is insulting to have you tell me what i believe when you don't know, and to have you make charges against me for things i have never said.

Moron.

0 Replies

Setanta, It doesn't make you look very intelligent being as petty as you are all over this forum with many people you disagree with. There are treatments available for your disorder.

0 Replies

And you saying that there are treatments available for my "disorder," that is not an example of you being petty?

That clown claimed that i believe the Shrub's story that Hussein was responsible for the events of September 11th. He didn't say this because he knows it is true, he didn't say it because there is any evidence in these fora that i believe that, and in fact, he says in spite of the evidence in many places in these fora which contradict that statement, which clearly show that i do not believe that.

So when someone retails lies about me, and attempts to belittle me on the basis of lies, i consider that the gloves are off. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.

0 Replies

"I have belittled and ridiculed those who claim they have "proof" that the current administration is criminally complicit in the events of September 11th." Bushie said he had no sense of urgency about bin Laden and al qaeda before 911. That despite a mountain of warnings from intel agencies around the world. But he did open doors and call off investigations. His cohorts wrote that a new Pearl Harbor would help sell their planned invasion of Iraq to the American people and 911 was used to sell that war even though Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Bushie ignored reports recommending tighter airport security and cockpit security efen though the threat of an attack by hijacked airliners was highly likely. There are other reasons Bushie could be charged with criminal negligence at the very least. "Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable". Yeah "probably" with a sense of urgency. criminalnegligence

0 Replies

Setanta, pointing out your pettiness disorder aint petty it's a helping hand if you could recognize it. Name calling is petty and you call a lot of posters here mean names. It's funny. Even funnier is your denial of what is evident all over this forum. Docent you know? Yes you doze.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So you consider it bullying to defend myself against a witless, lying and semi-literate attack? I'm not surprised.

"defend yourself"; now that's really a crock of sour owl manure, Set.

I see you given up your unfounded claims about "clear evidence of a cover-up" and have moved into personalities mode. That doesn't surprise me, either.

Your hypocrisy is showing yet again.

0 Replies

A string of unsupported allegations from you does not constitute evidence of criminal complicity on the part of the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad. It does, however, underline the point i have been making in this thread that for obsessional conspiracy theorists, anything which can be warped sufficiently to be construed as evidence of a cover-up will lead the obsessional conspiracy theorists to allege that there was criminal complicity.

0 Replies

UN Could Lead New 9/11 Investigation, Says Japanese MP

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know