Greetings from one of many angry conspiracy theorists!

 

"Does anyone think that when the towers were attacked in 1993, it was a conspiracy?  No. Why? Because it would be silly."

 

Actually, yes. read on...

 

Sheik Omar was granted a one-year visa on May 10, 1990 from a CIA agent posing as an official at the U.S. Consulate in Khartoum, Sudan; this permitted Rahman to avoid a State Department terrorism watch list. He was received in New York by a network of Mujahadin who had received training and material assistance from the CIA and the US military. In November 1990, Sheik Omar's visa was revoked, and the State Department advised the Immigration and Naturalization Service to be on the lookout for him. So attentive was the INS to this advisory that it issued a green card to Sheik Omar five months later. Not only did the federal government aid and abet Sheik Omar and his comrades, it acted as a passive accomplice to the first WTC bombing.

As I have written elsewhere, the FBI had abundant and detailed prior knowledge of the plot. Similar detailed warnings were offered to the FBI by an acquaintance of mine, a self-described former terrorist who was close to Rabbi Meir Kahane, the Jewish militant who had been murdered by Al-Sayyd Nosair, a participant in the first WTC bombing plot.

 

After Kahane was gunned down in cold blood by Nosair in November 1990, the FBI confiscated 49 boxes of documents from the murderer's New Jersey apartment. Among the detailed evidence found in that trove were bomb-making instructions, a hit list of public figures (including Kahane), paramilitary training materials, detailed pictures of famous buildings (including the World Trade Center), and sermons by Sheik Omar urging his followers to "destroy the edifices of capitalism."

All that was missing from that cache was an explicit note from the plotters stating, We are going to bomb the World Trade Center, and a specific date and time for the attack. In fact, that information ma very well have been provided to the Bureau by Emad Salem, the former Egyptian military intelligence officer who acted as Sheik Omar's bodyguard " while serving as an informant for the FBI. Salem recalled that the FBI's plan had been to replace the bomb meant for the WTC with a dud, and then arrest the plotters, but that the Bureau messed up.

 

Forgive my skepticism, but not even the FBI is capable of incompetence of that magnitude. Stupidity can only explain so much.

 

http://www.jbs.org/node/266

 

interesting.

i tend to agree with leanigs essay.  but it is a little over reaching.  sometimes the conspiracy is the "truth" sometimes not.  it is not fair to poo poo them all together.

Operation Able Danger the First?

Quite possibly. I had to go deep into the archives to find that one.

And yet notice how he didn't or rather couldn't dispute it, which he claims he can't do for me because he picks and chooses his battles and wouldn't lower himself to argue with a troll.  Has he explained why he won't dispute your claims when you have been nothing but congenial?  

Here's an interesting site:

 

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Cool, I'll be sure to add that to my bookmarks.  

"The “over informed”, as I coin it, are a product of four things: too much free time, too much imagination, too much bias and too much access to the internet. "
I call it " over facting", but the gist is the same. And I loved this point, "It is more likely, in my mind, that “gullibility” arises from choosing to apply automatic credibility to an internet site that says something that you want and need to believe is true. "
Look hard enough for something and usually you will find it.
Welcome back. I, too, missed your writing.

"Look hard enough for something and usually you will find it."

 

In deed. If one's premise is that christians are bad, christians are republicans, bush is a republican and bush lied everything that is anti christian, anti republican or anti bush seems true.  A true set up for pure gullibility.

stealing my thunder. but, thanks.

np

For every article, essay, "news" story that one person can find to support what he already believes to be true, there are two others that can claim as much credibility and validity to support the other side of the issue as well. It goes both ways. Thats why I find it absurd to RELY on stories to " back up" your claims or to form your opinion in the first place.

yup.

:d, Do you have an exact level of information calculated at which you're not an idiot and don't know too much or is it just a case of everyone who knows less than you is and idiot and everyone that knows more is crazy.

Building 7 incidentally is not the center of the world when it comes to 9/11, besides the significance of historical events such as the Gulf of Tonkin and the Lusitania, Larry Silverstein, the man who purchased the world trade centers several months before the attacks on a 99 year lease and massively insured them is on video stating that Building 7 was "pulled", a term for controlled demolition.  You can additionally see from the video that the building clearly collapses as if it was a controlled demolition, there are no visible wounds on the building, it collapses into it's own basement, and it along with the two towers are said to have collapsed officially from fire, which has never happened to any modern steel structure before or since in recorded history.  Pretty impressive for one day. 

I suppose so that's just the result of too much information, but don't worry, it doesn't seem like you'll be succumbing to that anytime soon.  I bow to your superior argument that you must be smarter than me because you know less, and I'm sure your certainty that those who claim to know more than you are stupid is in no way like the certainty of those who know nothing and think you're full of shit.

"Do you have an exact level of information calculated at which you're not an idiot and don't know too much or is it just a case of everyone who knows less than you is and idiot and everyone that knows more is crazy [?]".

 

Couldn't I ask you the same thing?  Aren't you the one who calls those who disagree with him "uninformed"?

 

" I bow to your superior argument ".

 

I suppose the world would be better if we all agreed with you.

 

"you're full of shit"

 

I do not allow cursing on my blog. I pressume you will respect that, friend.

Wow, you are an idiot.  So, you're saying that you won't allow cussing on your blog, which is static, meaning the first time I said shit, it is still there.  Look up.  You can still see it.  And to demonstrate just how adamantly you oppose foul language on your blog you reposted it.  Now it says shit twice, not counting this reply of course.  But I suppose addressing all of those is much easier than addressing any of the facts I threw out there, or countering with facts of your own.  No, again like most, you will simply spew your opinions without revealing the information and though processes that bought you there because you don't have any.  You simply repeat opinions you have heard without looking at the available information and coming to your own conclusions. 

I'm allowed to call most people idiots because I can defend my statements.  I assert that you in fact cannot, and that nothing you say is based on any kind of informed thought process, nor do you have any facts to back up anything you're ever likely to say.  Just another guesser who thinks everyone else must be too.

I don't even know you. I am not sure what has your ire.  You come here as if I were somehow talking to you.

 

I don't know if you troll the blogs looking for fights or what. You won't find one here. Sure, I will enter into debates with some. But, I choose to pick and choose.  You have kind of rubbed me wrong, but I guess that was your intent.

 

Sure, I used to be the type to call people "idiots", but I am a changed man. I was once like you, so I guess, in that respect, I understand you.

 

As for the cursing, that was a test for you.  I was trying to get a measure for the amount of decency you bring. Not a pass or fail test, mind you. But, let's say I now have the opinion that you must have intended me to have.

 

I guess when my son reads my blog, I will have to steer him around the curse words that are so germane to your lexicon. I had hoped you would understand. No matter. Continue as you were.

 

And, no. I will not delete your comments.  Nor will I screen replies.

Sure, then how about this

"Couldn't I ask you the same thing?  Aren't you the one who calls those who disagree with him "uninformed"?"

Funny how you would say that even though you apparently have no idea who I am.  Perhaps you have fallen on your head since that last reply?  I guess your earlier admittance of some kind of knowledge regarding me, whether secondhand or not, was just an illusion created by my paranoid delusional brain. 

Additionally, you can't defend your assertions.  You will come up with whatever reasons you need to but the fact of the matter is you have opinions recycled from wherever you get your news with no real investigation or understanding of the issues themselves.  You clearly have either heard of me or read my blog but pretend not to know who I am, then post a blog titled, conspiracy theorists: the nature of idiocy and go onto proclaim your innocence and shock that someone should attack you unprovoked.

Finally, you dispute the claims of conspiracy theorists, and yet I don't see anything there disputing a single fact of the thousands that these so called crazies present. 

It's not that you won't dispute these claims with evidence, it's that you can't, and that just happened to be the easiest excuse at the moment. 

You stated: "Those that carry the winning side of the debate fall into the “informed” caste and I am proud to fall into that category."  What do you consider appropriate sources of information?  What level of bias are you willing to accept?

thanks for joining in.

 

In deed, I did say that. The purpose of the essay was not to point to "appropriate" sources or not. Or, at least, it should not have been.  Only to point to one side of a two sided coin. The argument that I make about the "theorists" is the same argument that they can make about me. Do you understand the "two sides"? It is not reasonable for the theorists to somehow draw the conclusion that all who follow another logic are "gullible"; it is just as easy for them to come to that conclusion about the theorists.

 

Sure, my viewpoint is biased. All good views probably are.

 

Again, thanks.