Dylan on Loose Change FC
This MP3 file is mostly a debate between Chicago talk-show host Mancow and Alex Jones, but Dylan Avery comes on near the end. At about 67:00, Dylan talks about Loose Change FC:
"I can't go into too much detail now, but we're going to be in theatres in 2007 no matter what. If I had to put an estimate on it, it's probably going to be Spring... we're sticking to hard evidence, we're bringing up the ISI connection, Norman Mineta's testimony, we've already got an interview with Ray McGovern... that's why when I get all these attack pages or people criticizing us for what we say in the second edition, it doesn't even bother me, because things that I suggest in the second edition are merely that, they're just suggestions, and when the final cut drops in theatres, these people are going to have nothing to say to us, because we're sticking to all the things that we can prove."
I'm just baffled as to how he's going to bring in the ISI connection; it involves a (dubious) claim that the head of the ISI wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, shortly before the attacks. But of course the problem with this story is that Dylan Avery doesn't believe that Mohammed Atta was the ringleader of the 9-11 attacks, so what does the supposed $100,000 wire transfer mean? It's like saying that I have proof that OJ Simpson gave Al Cowlings a knife dripping with blood the night of Nicole's murder, but I don't think OJ was the killer. Say what?
posted by Pat @ 4:45 PM
60 comments
60 Comments:
I cant wait. LC:FC is going to be such a lame duck, dead on arrival production, it will be sweet to watch. It is going to be the most watered down piece of trite...And as for theatres, the only way I see that happening, is if some studio big wig wants to use it during election season...
TAM
Pat,
You have a long way to go to educate yourself. I'm actually surprised because you and James have often posted interesting well-researched items here... at least you didn't during your earlier days.... now you seem to have fallen to ad hominem attacks as your mainstay.
Here what you have wrong.
"I'm just baffled as to how he's going to bring in the ISI connection"
No one is saying that ISI wired any hijackers any money. What that are saying is the ISI sent instruction to a UAE middleman (you remember UAE,the Bush Admin wanted to turn over management of several domestic port to a Corp HQ'ed there until Congress went Ape-Shit) who wired the 100,000 to Atta.
This is all old news, and I know the proof is strong about the wire transfer happening. I don't know how strong the proof is tying ISI to it. There's not doubt ISI has been cooperating with the US and other Countries in actions that would be very embarrassing if exposed and widely understood.
I've said before that I don't like speculating. However, in the case of Atta and the other hijackers, it would be irresponsible (in light of your comments) to not say that a preponderance of the evidence points toward the conclusion that they were protected and shepherded to be the "patsies".
If you would read Webster Tarpley's book (9/11 Synthetic Terror), which may or may not be "on the money", you could at least carry on an intelligent conversation about 09/11.
Pat,
You have a long way to go to educate yourself. I'm actually surprised because you and James have often posted interesting well-researched items here... at least you did during your earlier days.... now you seem to have fallen to ad hominem attacks as your mainstay.
Here's what you have wrong.
"I'm just baffled as to how he's going to bring in the ISI connection"
No one is saying that ISI wired any hijackers any money. What they are saying is the ISI sent instruction to a UAE middleman (you remember UAE,the Bush Admin wanted to turn over management of several domestic port to a Corp HQ'ed there until Congress went Ape-Shit) who wired the 100,000 to Atta.
This is all old news, and I know the proof is strong about the wire transfer happening. I don't know how strong the proof is tying ISI to it. There's not doubt ISI has been cooperating with the US and other Countries in actions that would be very embarrassing if exposed and widely understood.
I've said before that I don't like speculating. However, in the case of Atta and the other hijackers, it would be irresponsible (in light of your comments) to not say that a preponderance of the evidence points toward the conclusion that they were protected and shepherded to be the "patsies".
If you would read Webster Tarpley's book (9/11 Synthetic Terror), which may or may not be "on the money", you could at least carry on an intelligent conversation about 09/11.
ISI connection relies on one alleged report from "Indian Intelligence". This report was allegedly provided to the "Times of India". All subsequent articles that refer to "Intelligence Claims" of ISI involvement, are using this single alleged report. This includes the Wall Street Journal that you truthers love to quote. If you read the article from this journal, it actually quotes most of its info word for word from the "Times of India" article.
Now we know the "Times of India" and "Indian Intelligence" would never have any reason to lie or embellish alleged information on "Pakistani" intelligence like the ISI, right?...this is laughable.
Gonna have to do better than this BG.
As for Tarpleys book...I would only purchase it if I was out of firewood, and the cottage was getting cold.
TAM
It'll also serve as toilet paper in a crunch.
Pardon the pun.
The Artistic Macrophage,
Would you accept Tarpley's book as a gift from me.... maybe an early Xmas present?
No, I have lots of firewood to do me...but thanks for the offered generosity...lol
TAM
Ok, here's a link for any of those who are curious about the type of info you could have in Tarpley's book:
9/11: Problems with the Official Story” Who Really Did It
The above tends to show a Michael Moore level analysis, which is extremely disgusting, but it misses most of the point, but it's a quick read.
Boring, pointless, and just plain wrong.
NEXT!
Alex,
Let me be straight with you without malice. Is there anything that I could point out to you that would have any impact? You seem to be in complete denial that any evidence is associated with legit questions.
The following is not for Alex.. because he says it's boring:
(by the way I should be clear, it's possible and it is my belief that the hijackers were a subterfuge (extremely useful props) and this is layered on top of the probably true facts that linked and excerpted below)
quoting from
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE5-2/narayanan.html
......
One might well ask why the original $100K payment would be made through traceable channels. The answer may be that (a) the source had to be authenticated for Atta to proceed and (a) the traceable party was Omar Shaikh Saeed, already a known terrorist with Al Qaeda links, and thus expendable (he is supposedly on Death Row now). Note that Saeed’s pseudonym for the transactions was “M. Ahmad”. The cell-phone intercept of Pakistan ISI Chief General Mehmood Ahmed was presumably secret until revealed to the FBI in late 2001 when its significance became clear.
A further link in the funding scheme came from arrests following the motorcycle drive-by murder of policemen guarding the American Center in Kolkata, India in January 2002. Even as India pointed to Pakistani links, Aftab Ansari, a kidnap-gang leader, was reported to have claimed credit for this from safety in Dubai, as “revenge”. Indian police had shot his associate Asif Reza Khan, “trying to escape” after being arrested for holding jeweler Bhaskar Parekh to ransom in November 2000. This prompted US FBI Chief Robert Mueller, visiting India at the time, to declare that the shooting appeared to be gang-related, not a terrorist attack on the US. The fun ended when two of the motorcyclists were tracked down and surrounded. One died in a shootout, the other was captured alive and interrogated. Using evidence from Asif Reza Khan’s interrogation, Interpol issued a “Red Corner Notice” against Ansari. Dubai acted quickly on this notice, arresting Aftab Ansari as he tried to catch a PIA flight to Karachi with his Pakistani passport. Dubai extradited him to India, where he confessed. From [TOI020123]: “CBI Director P C Sharma told visiting FBI Chief Robert S Mueller that Ansari, who claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attack, had taken a ransom of Rs 37.5 million to free (kidnap victim) shoe baron Parthapratim Roy Burman through hawala channels to Dubai.. . Out of this amount, Omar Sheikh ..had sent $100,000 to Atta through telegraphic transfer..”.
There appears to be confusion in the media reports on the timing of the $100K wire transfer (if there was only one). We presume that “Al Ansari exchange” mentioned above in Sharjah, a half-hour’s drive from Dubai, is owned by Mr. Ansari. The link between Aftab Ansari, Omar Shaikh and the Pakistan ISI is discussed in [Twk020322], and attributed to Ansari’s gang-member Asif in [TRIN020126], and Ansari’s confession in [Trib020513] and [IPCS2002]. [Rediff020123] describes how Ansari, Omar Shaikh Saeed and Masood Azhar met in prison. Mr. Burman was kidnapped in July 2001 and released on Aug. 2, 2001 [Blonnet010803]. However, Ansari’s specialties were kidnapping and arms deals, and he had no shortage of wealth. [CNN020710] reports that “one of the first transfers was $110,000 in 2000 to an account held by Atta and Waleed Alshedri” – clearly this could not be from the ransom money obtained in November 2000 or July 2001. [Mir020711] also states that the Mehmood-Saeed wire of $100,000 to Atta occurred in “summer 2000”, matching the above. Ansari’s confession stated that Omar Shaikh Saeed introduced him at General Mehmood’s suggestion in mid-2000 to “Professor” Hafeez Sayeed, leader of the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist organization, and they jointly developed plots where kidnapping would fund terror activities. Azim Cheema, an L-e-T terrorist, is said to have delivered the Pakistani passport and other documents for Ansari’s use. Ansari confessed to several payments to Omar Shaikh Saeed, and to funding an arms cache including 14kg of RDX, which was seized in Patan, India.
The confusion regarding payments can be cleared by realizing that there were several payments, totaling well over $325,000 and perhaps over $500,000 [CNN020710]. The source may have been Al Ansari accounts, but the disbursements may have been routed through the Middle East, Europe or the Caymans, using banking and untraceable “hawala” channels. [CNN020710] reports how the 9/11 hijackers opened bank accounts, giving false data in cities in the southern US including SunTrust, a major Atlanta-based bank. A report from the Cayman Islands [Cayman010916] speaks of a strange group appearing there, claiming to be Afghans traveling on Pakistani passports – which could not be found. As the authorities tried to find out from Pakistan and Britain about these men (with no response from the Pak embassy), an anonymous writer sent a letter to a Cayman media editor declaring that the men were terrorists bent on launching an attack on the US – just before Sep. 11.
From the above accounts, the Pakistan ISI Chief and terrorists under his control appear to have been much closer to the funding and implementation of the 9/11 plot than Osama bin Laden was. The links between the kidnapping / hijacking ransoms and the 9/11 terrorists’ funding shows a very different tactic from those attributed to bin Laden’s funding mechanisms. Clearly, the spy agency of Pakistan would be in an excellent position to shake down international kidnappers who depended on Pakistani protection and passports – and the ISI Chief would have easy access to their accounts. The intercepted cell-phone call is the only direct published tie to Musharraf’s junta – unless Omar Shaikh Saeed talks to US investigators. Pakistan appears bent on preventing this – supposedly having put Saeed on Death Row for the murder of Daniel Pearl. Hafeez Sayeed, the L-e-T chief, has also disappeared, his wife having filed a “habeas corpus” petition and the Pak authorities denying holding him.
Yes, you could point out a direct connection using a source other than Indian intelligence.
What you're doing, in effect, is quoting a study commissioned and payed for by the tobacco industry, which states that most smokers don't have Parkinson's disease, and then using that in order to "prove" that smoking cures Parkinson's disease. Want me to take you seriously? Show a direct link, not hearsay and guesses, and have it backed by a credible source. Until then you're wasting your time.
Naturally, no conspiracy liar has bothered to read 911myths.com on this canard:
http://911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html
Clickable Link for Above Comments (if the url doesn't work
Pomeroo,
Here's the bottom line from where you just linked:
"We’re no more able to say what really happened here than anyone else"
You ignoramus!
". . .that's why when I get all these attack pages or people criticizing us for what we say in the second edition, it doesn't even bother me, because things that I suggest in the second edition are merely that, they're just suggestions, and when the final cut drops in theatres, these people are going to have nothing to say to us, because we're sticking to all the things that we can prove."
Wow, OK... So, I read that a couple different ways:
1) The first two editions were just Dylan and his buddies screwing around, but this time they're serious! (Pfft.)
2) "[S]ticking to all the things that we can prove." What... now? After practically admitting that the previous version wasn't really the Golden Cow so many "Truthers" believed it to be, why should anyone take this statement seriously? Sadly, it seems the "Truthers" are allowed to ammend their "theory" over time, but the official account has to be boxed into the 6 months immediately following 9/11. Talk about a double-standard...
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, uhh... *drool*
"We’re no more able to say what really happened here than anyone else"
Ahh, an LC Talking Point rears its ugly head. An arrogant one at that. It "automatically", in their strange, little world, puts them on the same level as the official account, but without having to do all the work to get there.
Claim that no one knows any more than you do, and somehow you have free license to "suggest" anything you desire. *gag*
More Confusing Terror-Related News From Pakistan
R.Lange,
I don't recall our paths crossing. You certainly are aren't impressing me so far.
I'm not an apologist for the Loose Change the movie. It is useful as a way to get people's attention. However, any serious consideration of 9/11 requires a thorough review of the evidence, not just clever cherry picked quotes and insinuations.
However, any serious consideration of 9/11 requires a thorough review of the evidence
Planning on starting that any time soon?
Bg, your definition of an ignoramus is interesting. Apparently, when sufficient evidence to make an informed judgment is not available, the person who declines to invent farfetched factoids in support of a preconceived theory is an ignoramus.
If I confess to being baffled over the origins of the universe, I am an ignoramus. If I just know with all my heart that the world is a flat disk that rests on a giant turtle that has always existed, I am a conspiracy fantasist.
I like the way you don't think.
BG, simple question. What does the $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta mean if you think he didn't fly Flight 11 into WTC 1? I confess to being baffled on this point. Did they send him the money so he wouldn't pull of the hijackings that day?
I cannot see how this story fits with any of the conspiracy theories advanced by the 9-11 Deniers. Indeed, it seems to be an unconnectable dot from either side's theory, which says either it's not connected or it's nonsense. I think the latter.
Pat,
Thanks for the question about what was going on with the "hijackers" on 9/11.
This really is an easy one. I'm not saying I can prove it. I'm not saying you are a fool or an enemy of you don't go along with it.
9/11, whoever planned it, was a sophisticated false-flag operation. In any false-flag operation one of the crucial components is to have the patsies. The patsies job is to be conspicuous and to be noticed prior to the events. The idea is that all traces to the real power behind the attack will be masked by the patsies.
The patsies may be intent on committing a crime. However, they almost always aren't aware of the particular way that they are being set up to take the fall, or the real dimensions of the event.
All of the "true" flight school stories, including the Moussouri non-sense falls in line with this setup.
So, the fact that ISI was involved in wiring 100,000 to Atta is evidence to a the "support system" to the "patsy" network.
Pat, I am stating the above because I believe it is a reasonable speculation based on the evidence. What I am saying is meticulously documented in Webster Tarpley book: 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in the USA.
apathoid said...
If the hijackers were patsies, they would still be alive....
This is a good question. Patsies are often killed even if they didn't die as claimed.
In the case of the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was dead quite soon after the event.
Connecting the Dots,
I just ran across this article which connects ISI back to "western power". I don't know what I think of this analysis. I don't like use the CIA as the be all and end all of the evil behind the scenes. Using the word CIA is too limiting.
However, for those of you asking to be shown the big picture, I think the following is worth your time:
Liquid Bomb Pakistan Link Is False Flag Smoking Gun
Pay attention. This is truly authentic video from July, 2001.
Alex Jones Predicts 9/11-like Terrorist attack in U.S. on his July 25, 2001 Show
and when the final cut drops in theatres, these people are going to have nothing to say to us, because we're sticking to all the things that we can prove."
Oh we will have plenty to say, although most of it has been said already, they just aren't paying attention.
MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.
MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.
I don't think Mineta is going to take too kindly to being continually slandered like this.
BG, he predicts that Planes will be blown up, not used as missiles.
He also predicted that there would be a bone shattering new attack before the end of October....
Jay,
Let me help you with your side of the argument:
Alex Jones - More Than Just A Nutcase
The plain fact is that what Jones warned about: bin Laden begin the grand patsi with false flag terror happened on 9/11.
Jay. do you want to understand the truth, or do you want to join in a mindless Alex Jones bashing?
apathoid said...
I just don't see it, bg.
I'm willing to work with you on this. If you would read books like Tarpley's, it would make this much easier.
As it is, let me explain.
I don't contend that there were not people who showed up to board planes on 9/11 who had reservations under the names of the "hijackers". I don't contend that many of these names did not match people with the same physical description that had been taking flight training or had done things such as applying for a loan to start a crop dusting busines. I don't content that at least some, possibly all of the hijackers were using their true identities, (or the same identities that they provide in previous contacts, such as the crop duster loan).
I don't content that none of the flights departed said airports as documented.
The hijackers were real people, the picture and other evidence collected is more or less real (although some of it was clearly planted the hijackers or other agents).
What I am contending is:
The hijackers had very little to do with the causes of death at the 4 crime scenes.
To Everyone,
I love my Country (USA). I grew with a loving Family, and the best of the fruit of the heroic sacrifices of those before me who fought honorably, some paying the ultimate price for my freedom.
My Uncle was a pilot and died in combat in the Korean Conflict.
I have never been a "leftist". I've never imagined any violent act causing death against anyone.
I am not against the US, and I'm not against protecting our legitimate interests (in a moral way) as a Nation.
I don't think W. Bush masterminded this plot or any other plot. I doubt that Cheney played much more than a supporting and coverup role.
I am simply following where the evidence leads, and the fact you won't debate on the merits of the arguments adds injustice on top of the original injustice of it all.
Alex Jones is like the old saying that economists have correctly predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions.
Alex Jones is nothing but a loud mouth piece of shit like he proved at the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks where he rallied the crowd with a fucking bullhorn while the families of the victims were only a few 100 feet away mourning for the loss of their loved ones.
So yeh, u could count me in as a Alex Jones basher.
Lying_Dylan said...
You are a pathetic piece of shit.
Yep, another strong argument for the govt. story.
Jay,
I agree with you about Alex's behavior at ground zero.
My interest is not about support the man or his actions. My interest is pointing the logic of my position. To the extent that Alex has spoken out about the truth, I reference him as a source. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.
I've stated on this blog, that his radio show is about fear mongering.
The point is not whether everything he does or says is true or to your liking. The point is that evidence leads to conclusions, and Alex had his finger on the pulse of some of that evidence before 9/11 happened.
BG, Did he predict where the attacks would be, when they would occur, how they would be executed?
The only thing he got right was Bin Laden, which isn't a real surprise since he is the number one terrorist on the hitlist of the FBI. So even i could have gotten that part right.
Hijackers Patsies
Jay,
If you studied the evidence about what happened on 9/11 as little as it seems like you have, it completely understandable why you would think AJ's warning was no big deal.
I am simply following where the evidence leads, and the fact you won't debate on the merits of the arguments adds injustice on top of the original injustice of it all.
Not exactly buds. You are making wild speculations based on incomplete information, and your case has zero merit. You are little better than any other twoofer - the only thing you ARE better at is staying away from the truly insane theories.
At least you have that much going for you - your theories are at least sane, and theoretically possible. Your PROBLEM is that you start with the assumption that the government was responsible for 9/11, and then "examine" the evidence from that perspective, drawing only the conclusions which back up your belief. Now, I don't know if that assumption is caused by a chemical imbalance in your cerebrum, or simply by your political ideology. Either way though, when you start off with a flawed premise it's not hard to make "the facts" fit. You just have to tweak them a little, use "anonymous sources" or sources with a proven bias, and make "hypothesis" that can never be entirely disproved. Voila. You've got an ominous sounding case that has zero chance of ever actually being proven, or accepted.
Alex Jones is still going on in this interview about "44,000 US and British troops in Tadjikistan and Uzbeakistan[sic] before 9/11".
What a moron.
Pat / James,
Early in these comments, I posted a duplicate comment with corrections. As you have time, would you delete the first of the two?
The point is that evidence leads to conclusions, and Alex had his finger on the pulse of some of that evidence before 9/11 happened.
Yeah. The guy's been screaming about false flag attacks since 1993. If you keep yelling that the sky is falling long enough, eventually you'll be right.
James,
I see your point (about AJ). In a just world, we would have had a 9/11 Commission that did a real investigation, and crazy claims would be officially debunked.
Look what happened instead.
We still need a real official investigation.
Alex,
The 1993 WTC bombing was also a false flag operation.
Lying_Dylan,
I logging in with a blogger beta id, and the delete button does not show for me.
There's Something About Omar
The 1993 WTC bombing was also a false flag operation.
Wrong again.
Really...does it get tiring being wrong all the time?
Lying_Dylan,
No problem. I give you credit for caring about the truth. I believe you believe your presence and comments here are about standing of for truth and justice.
You are way too inept to be a disinfo agent.
I do not wish to read through pages and pagfes of crap to find your gem, so here is what i would like.
Show me one, just one, credible source that has solid evidence that the $100K was transfered from ISI via a middleman.
Indian Intelligence will not due, for obvious reasons, nor will any article that has directly or indirectly quoted Indian Intelligence.
Tarpley will not due either, for obvious, bias reasons.
TAM
Nice rebuttal BG, but u didn't answer my questions.
Did he predict where, when, how?
And how did u study the events of what happened on 9/11, BG, did u watch Loose Change a few times?
I see your point (about AJ). In a just world, we would have had a 9/11 Commission that did a real investigation, and crazy claims would be officially debunked.
So let me get this straight BG...the JFK assassination, the '93 WTC attack, and 9/11...NONE of them had a "real investigation"?
What's next? The Beirut barracks bombing? The attack on the USS Cole? The US embassy attack? Ohh, the holocaust? Let me guess, NONE of those things had a "real investigation", right?
What defect neuron in that tiny little cranium of yours is causing this?
How can you possibly believe that YOU are the sole qualified judge of what constitutes a "real investigation"?
And what would it take for you to stop and realize that when no investigation ever done seems real to you, perhaps the only unreal thing is your perception of the world?
The hopelessly confused conspiracy liar "bg" illustrates perfectly the mindset of these cretins:
"The hijackers had very little to do with the causes of death at the 4 crime scenes."
Um, let's try to follow the, heh-heh, logic. The people who took over the planes by force and flew them into buildings are properly described as "hijackers." They, however, "had very little to do with the causes of death..."
Can we start over? Something apparently dropped out of this argument. Hijackers who, although successful in, well, HIJACKING the aircraft they targeted, had very little to do with the causes of the passengers' deaths. It is not known how many passengers suffered from heart conditions, or cancer, or skin rashes, but it is safe to say that all of them reacted quite badly to their plane's impact with a building and the resultant explosions and fires.
So, we return, as always, to the question of motive. The jihadists had stated their goals many times. Previous successes (e.g., the Khobar Towers, the African embassies, the USS Cole, Somalia) had emboldened them. They were ready to raise the stakes.
The reason we should believe this is that they TOLD us so. Perhaps you want to contend/pretend that the attack on the Cole was one of your fabricated "false flag attacks"? Hmmm, the Clinton administration engineered an attack on an American ship in order NOT TO RESPOND TO IT. Hey, man, that's subtle! Say what you will about Bubba's character, that dude is SUBTLE!
The motive of the American government for plunging the economy into a recession was to start a war with Afghanistan and Iraq. To this end, they just sorta, kinda, plumb forgot make any of the imaginary hijackers Afghanis or Iraqis. Now, that's an oversight for you!
Hey, bg, brilliant case you're making. It's amazing what you can do with a total lack of critical thinking skills and absolutely zero evidence.
If he had a team of psychiatrists, he wouldn't be able to get out of his padded room, and hence would not be posting here.
The meds though? Quite possible. Although hallucinogenic drugs are more likely.
What do you say BG? There's a valid theory! I don't need any proof, according to you, just a plausible theory. Well, there's my theory: you're on LSD. Now, prove me wrong. Oh, and make sure you don't quote any experts, they're all on the government payroll.
I take medication for hypertension.
aw, you're just a patsy. They're really feeding you LSD so they can frame you when they assassinate President Hillary Clinton in 2012.
BG said...
I take medication for hypertension.
We're shocked.....not.
And no matter wat one thinks of the alleged money transfer, it's based on Indian intelligence reports - not necessarily unbiased. I'll be excited to see how many of their unprovable core arguments they really shed. If they got rid of all the crap they'd be left with roughly nothing.
bg wrote:
The plain fact is that what Jones warned about: bin Laden begin the grand patsi with false flag terror happened on 9/11.
Jones did nothing of the sort (although he has predicted another attack before the midterm elections, which did not materialise). Here is his alleged prediction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8
It's the same one posted on PrisonPlanet (Jones' own site) to support the notion that he predicted the 9/11 terror attacks. And yet something becomes immediately obvious: Jones is simply crassly asserting that any terrorist attack which would ever occur would be performed by the White House. He states no dates, no targets, no method. Had any attack ever occured in the next century he could claim his 'prediction' is fulfilled even though he never actually predicts anything.
The guy rattles off a number of other terrorist attacks and blamed them on the American government sans evidence, and then said any following attacks would also be the fault of the government. He flagrantly displays his own biases and prejudices: watch the video, he literally claims any terrorist attack to come would be a plot of the US government. The video is ample evidence that Jones would have behaved the way he is now had any attack remotely related to the US had occured. It amply displays the fact that he is a nutter.
BG- You have done a worthy job of providing evidence of the wire transfer. The proof is there. Now what all the OS'ers need to do is prove that it is wrong, a fallacy, untrue, etc. Pointing out that it was an Indian intel operative does not discredit the evidence at all. They can't prove the report was written with biased information or for that matter outright lies, that is all speculation and guesses, not proof, which is what the OS community consistently asks for.
What will need to be done is to actually disprove the event itself. You can't discredit one report based upon a country's historical record with another record or for the ethnic identity of the agent.
Based upon that logic, if India and Pakistan become close allies, then the report becomes true! So try again, OS'ers.
As far as OKC, I encourage you to watch all of the local news video right after the event regarding additional bombs located within the building. The truck bomb is truly the cover story.
Now either the security at the OKC was truly lax, or there was an insider. Make your own decision, but it certainly wasn't a lone truck bomb.
Pointing out that it was an Indian intel operative does not discredit the evidence at all.
Dude, what the hell is wrong with you? ALL of the evidence depends on ONE INDIAN SOURCE. That's the equivalent of accusing the head of the Ford Motor Company of making unsafe cars, based only on the testimony of the CEO of Honda. Sorry, that just aint gonna fly. I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but even you should be able to understand that much.
As far as OKC, I encourage you to watch all of the local news video right after the event regarding additional bombs located within the building.
Yes, yes, yes. And watch the American flag in the moon landing video. Don't worry swinger, we've heard it all before. We still think you're nucking futs.
Post a Comment
<< Home