More Cutting-Edge Truther Research
This cracked me up when I saw this post on 911 Blogger under the title, "Phone Calls from the Planes: Surprising New Evidence":
For the Zacarias Moussoui trial, the government has released all its detailed evidence regarding the phone calls from the planes. The evidence is titled "Zacarias Moussaoui Prosecution Trial Exhibit number P200055," and can be partially viewed here:http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html
The evidence is very revealing and detailed, and contradicts some of the assumptions previously held by 9/11 researchers. For example:
Wow, nothing gets past these guys. Here is the post that I did on this subject (Pat and I did a whole series on the Moussaoui trial evidence) last August. What new revelations await us next?
posted by James B. @ 11:55 PM
22 comments
22 Comments:
Holy cow - do you mean to tell me that the Denialists and the Troothers have finally concluded through no research of their own that the calls on 9/11 were NOT from cell phones? That they were from airphones?
Omigod, Batman! Wonders never end!
James & Pat, the Moussaoui trial did prove a real cover up:
- MOUSSAOUI TRIAL TESTIMONY CONFIRMS FBI COVERUP IN VENICE
- MOUSSAOUI COURT DOCUMENTS SHOW FBI WITHHELD EVIDENCE IN 9/11 COVER-UP
Good stuff Critical_Thinker
I suggest you look into Daniel "wouldn't know the truth if it bit me in the ass" Hopsicker's claims
Explain why you would say such a thing. Have you ever read any of his books? Do you know even that Hopicker was an independent investigator way before 9/11? I'm asking you this because judging from your comment, you sound like you know a whole lot on him, and also seem to be a critique.
BTWm have you even read the articles I posted?
*Seem to be very critical of his work.
Ah yes, I remember that idiot. It's Mr. "RUSSIAN MOBSTER TIED TO 9/11 IN ASSASINATION PLOT IN UKRAINE". His page reads like the national enquirer. And he managed to mis-spell "assassination".
I suggest you look into Daniel "wouldn't know the truth if it bit me in the ass" Hopsicker's claims, rather than taking them at face value.
Heh. The first thing they oughta look into is what Hopsicker believes about 9-11. He's a whackadoo alright, but he's a completely different whackadoo from the typical CTist. Indeed, he thinks they're all being funded by Adnan Khashoggi.
So, CT, you and he work it out and come back to us, huh?
By any reasonable standard and legal precedence, the idea that Moussaoui was "death penalty qualified", and the fact that he signed off on a huge statement for the court that agreeing with the govt story of 9/11, stipulating it as "the truth", is enough to make the Moussaoui trial one of the low points of judicial integrity in the history of the American Republic.
Of course it's a step below torture or execution based on Pres. decree.
Kind of like asking David Duke about Racism, and expecting an objective opinion...
Hopsicker is a well known 9/11 CTist, so all of his work on the subject is too riddled with agenda for me to consider it...so before you ask, NO i did not read the articles, and do not intend to.
Show me something in a very similar vein by a legitimate, unbiased journalist and I will take a look.
TAM
yes, this is slightly off the topic of this post:
How Israel Manipulated Western Intelligence Agencies - Curtiss
Show me something in a very similar vein by a legitimate, unbiased journalist and I will take a look.
I recommend to your consideration:
Link at Amazon: Triple Cross
A former Egyptian army captain, Mohamed succeeded in infiltrating the CIA in Europe, the Green Berets at Fort Bragg, and the FBI in California—even as he helped to orchestrate the al Qaeda campaign of terror that culminated in 9/11.
Mohamed was a supply guy, not a green beret.
Half-assed "research" here, but... The Wikipedia article on Peter Lance doesn't make him to be a "Bush did it" supporter, or even a LIHOP supporter.
Half-assed "research" here, but... The Wikipedia article on Peter Lance doesn't make him to be a "Bush did it" supporter, or even a LIHOP supporter.
Cl1mh4224rd said...
Half-assed "research" here, but... The Wikipedia article on Peter Lance doesn't make him to be a "Bush did it" supporter, or even a LIHOP supporter.
cl,
What are you talking about? I didn't say or imply that Lance is a Bush supporter / detractor, or that he is LIHOP, MIHOP with respect to 9/11.
He has written a book that substantiates some of the charges made by Hopsicker, who was beging maligned here, "throw out" as a legit journalist.
Lance provides an interesting details and overall picture that seems to get toward the truth, and that's what I for.
Lance provides an interesting details and overall picture that seems to get toward the truth, and that's what I for.
Stop lying, "you twat". You've done nothing but spread lies since day 1.
What I'm asking is a fair hearing.
Read Triple Cross. Review details such as provided here: Firing Line: The Man Who Knew
Peter Lance describes how "bugling" let OBL get away with it.
Further review, with info such as the John O'Neil story, makes one pause and think, "Was there high level LIHIP"?
Adding the entire set of facts uncovered since 9/11, with the undeniable inadequate work performed by the 9/11 Commission, along with many other factors, begs for further investigation.
You've had your fair hearing. You wasted it by flying off the deep end, and bringing up all sorts of crazy conspiracies.
Now, even if the book you're suggesting was actually chock-full of useful info, nobody here would bother checking it out because you've succeeded in convincing us that any book you recommended is going to be as batshit-insane as you are!
Do you SERIOUSLY expect me to take reading advice from someone who suggested that the people who jumped from the WTC did so because the government zapped them with a microwave beam?
Of course it's a step below torture or execution based on Pres. decree.
What executions?
shawn said...
Of course it's a step below torture or execution based on Pres. decree.
What executions?
None that I can prove. If the Congress would do oversight, maybe we would find out.
None that I can prove.
Gee, there's a shocker. Normally you're so good at providing evidence to back up your statements.
BG wrote: "None that I can prove. If the Congress would do oversight, maybe we would find out."
Classic. Since Congress isn't doing their job according to you, you can claim just about anything, is that it? There's also the implied, "If Congress did their job, you'd know I was right."
Post a Comment
<< Home