Are there any conspiracy theories that turned out to be true? (high school, terrorism)

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

You could read the thread. The contrary of no-planerism. I have very little doubt a plane was flown into the Pentagon.

Good to hear that. I was getting concerned (we don't need any more "truthers" here).

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

Originally Posted by Fleet

They did not lie about WMD. Democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi were making the exact claims, too... even before G.W. Bush was president!

Also, WMD was not the only reason to resume military action in Iraq.

Of for crying out loud, Democrats weren't the ones carrying on about mushroom clouds and yellow cake.

This is as dim as insisting that Obama was really the one behind the Muslim Travel Ban.

Of course, we all know phony WMDs is not why we invaded Iraq.

OIL.

Operation Iraq Liberation had to change names when someone recognized that it was too on the nose.

BTW, Ambassador Wilson found no evidence to the yellow cake story and in retaliation for saying so, Cheney and Nowak outed his wife, an undercover CIA agent working on nuclear proliferation, thus ending her career and likely the lives of her informants and contacts.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by cisco kid

The official story only works when using such unrealistic, cartoonish descriptions.
As if the World Trade Center buildings were made of a bunch of loose wooden pieces or a house of cards.

The official story of 9/11 put forth by the Bush people is a house of cards that cannot hold up to even minimal scrutiny.

Again, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

It's not a story put forth by the Bush people. That's part of your problem. In order to sell the truther story, you must also try to persuade everybody that the federal government swooped down on lower Manhattan, took control of the site, and with dastardly intent concocted a tale closed off from the rest of the world. It's a bad movie.

Unfortunately for whatever it is you are trying to get from promoting this tale, it isn't true. There are tens of thousands of people outside the federal government who were on site, at Fresh Kills, who reviewed the collapse analysis who would know you are lying, and if not lying, choosing to be just plain stupid.

What is your expertise? You go on and on about physics, but you've been clearly informed numerous times now that actual, real live engineers who were on site that day and in the months following say it wasn't a controlled demolition.

I'm guessing from your name you might install telephone systems. I am not sure after seeing your refusal to understand and accept information from those who know more than you do that I would trust you to rig up two tin cans and a string.

[Raddo]

Originally Posted by cisco kid

Pancaking doesn't explain the collapse of building 7 which wasn't hit by an airplane.

In regard to the twin towers, the pancaking theory doesn't hold up either. Even Bush officials who wrote the report specifically ruled out the pancaking theory. If it were pancaking you would see the floors piling up with the stack of collapsed floors getting bigger and bigger as the building collapsed downward. But that's not what we see in the videos. What the collapse videos shows are the top floors being blown apart one by one, literally turned into dust one by one as the collapse progression makes its way toward the ground.

The stack of pancakes is missing. And without a big stack of (intact) pancaked floors, the massive force required to crush the building all the way down to the ground is absent. And you are left with explosives as the most plausible explanation.

That is the biggest load of garbage you have typed in this thread to date. The floors blown apart one by one? It is bizarre that a human with a thinking brain could actually believe that. They must have planted all those explosives during the building's construction, right? The explosives must have been mixed into the concrete in such a way that the explosion resulted in complete dust, instead of concrete chunks being blown in all different directions like conventional explosives would have done. So, of course all the construction workers must be in on this, as is the concrete companies.

I can't believe you actually believe this!

One of the reasons it took so long to clear the site is because all those floors were indeed pancaked down into the basement. Only a fool of the highest caliber would believe each floor was blown into dust.

[Mightyqueen801]

It is painfully clear that cisco kid has not read anything about the WTC except for that which is available on truther sites. And never once questioned a thing they said. Just swallowed it whole.

[Listener2307]

Yeah, for some people the proof of a conspiracy is the fact that the theory exists. They never offer anything other than the theory, over and over.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould

Of for crying out loud, Democrats weren't the ones carrying on about mushroom clouds and yellow cake.

This is as dim as insisting that Obama was really the one behind the Muslim Travel Ban.

Of course, we all know phony WMDs is not why we invaded Iraq.

OIL.

Operation Iraq Liberation had to change names when someone recognized that it was too on the nose.

BTW, Ambassador Wilson found no evidence to the yellow cake story and in retaliation for saying so, Cheney and Nowak outed his wife, an undercover CIA agent working on nuclear proliferation, thus ending her career and likely the lives of her informants and contacts.

Going by info received is not lying.

So when do we "get" Iraq's oil? And why were our troops sent to Afghanistan? There are no oil reserves there.

Back to the Democrats claiming Iraq had WMD. Were they "lying?"

Democrat Quotes on WMD

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould

Of for crying out loud, Democrats weren't the ones carrying on about mushroom clouds and yellow cake.

This is as dim as insisting that Obama was really the one behind the Muslim Travel Ban.

Of course, we all know phony WMDs is not why we invaded Iraq.

OIL.

Operation Iraq Liberation had to change names when someone recognized that it was too on the nose.

BTW, Ambassador Wilson found no evidence to the yellow cake story and in retaliation for saying so, Cheney and Nowak outed his wife, an undercover CIA agent working on nuclear proliferation, thus ending her career and likely the lives of her informants and contacts.

uhm


you mean this guy

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17
------------------------

BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.


Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
During an interview with Bill Moyers
February 28, 2003
==================================

oh please V. Plame was not undercover


The Associated Press is reporting that Joe Wilson himself, in an interview on CNN, confirms that Valery Plame was not a covert agent at the time of Robert Novak's article mentioning her name.

AP
Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column.

---------------
When the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was being negotiated, Senate Select Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater was adamant: If the CIA desired a law making it illegal to expose one of its deep cover employees, then the agency must do a much better job of protecting their cover. That is why a criterion for any prosecution under the act is that the government was taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the protected person's relationship to the intelligence agency. Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name:

• The CIA sent her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for unconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.

• Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or represent CIA clients.

• When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.

• Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.

* More important than the inaccuracies is that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.

• CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.

• Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the Federal Elections Commission.

1982 Identities Protection Act legislation
"This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a no question about it...she was NOT COVERT as 'covert.'"


plames and wilsons wedding in 1998 was VERY PUBLIC...the Clinton's were invited

Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column.

The Post's Bob Woodward testified that Armitage told him on June 13, 2003, rather colorfully: Wilson's "wife's a [expletive] analyst at the agency."

The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.

There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure.

By Victoria Toensing
Trial in Error
According to CIA veterans, U.S. intelligence officers working in American embassies under "diplomatic cover" are almost invariably known to friendly and opposition intelligence services alike.

Game over

[cisco kid]

Originally Posted by Raddo

The explosives must have been mixed into the concrete in such a way that the explosion resulted in complete dust, instead of concrete chunks being blown in all different directions like conventional explosives would have done. So, of course all the construction workers must be in on this, as is the concrete companies.

It wouldn't be too hard to plant the explosives in the buildings. Legitimate, routine construction and renovation work is taking place in the towers all the time. If someone wanted to rig the buildings with explosives, no one would know. They would simply do it under the guise of performing regular building maintenance and renovation. Another interesting coincidence was Marvin Bush, Bush's cousin was the head of the company in charge of security for the towers. Independent scientists have found explosive residue in the debris and dust, while Bush officials conducting the investigation admitted that they never bothered to check for explosive residue.

There is no reason why any of the towers should have collapsed. The official story is complete garbage that only an idiot believes. You obviously swallowed the lies about the Iraq WMDs as well? That's why crooks like Bush and Cheney can get away with their crimes. Because like you most people are gullible and believe whatever their government tells them.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

It is painfully clear that cisco kid has not read anything about the WTC except for that which is available on truther sites. And never once questioned a thing they said. Just swallowed it whole.

Originally Posted by cisco kid

It wouldn't be too hard to plant the explosives in the buildings. Legitimate, routine construction and renovation work is taking place in the towers all the time. If someone wanted to rig the buildings with explosives, no one would know. They would simply do it under the guise of performing regular building maintenance and renovation. Another interesting coincidence was Marvin Bush, Bush's cousin was the head of the company in charge of security for the towers. Independent scientists have found explosive residue in the debris and dust, while Bush officials conducting the investigation admitted that they never bothered to check for explosive residue.

There is no reason why any of the towers should have collapsed. The official story is complete garbage that only an idiot believes. You obviously swallowed the lies about the Iraq WMDs as well? That's why crooks like Bush and Cheney can get away with their crimes. Because like you most people are gullible and believe whatever their government tells them.

See my post above. You just fortified that statement.

Seriously? We were bombed in 1993. We had received notification from the FBI of threats about Middle Eastern terrorists posing as engineering students requesting tours of the mechanical equipment rooms as far back as 1985. The buildings were a known terrorist target--and you think that we let contractors just sashay on up in there with their equipment and materials and workers, with no one monitoring them? All those hundreds of engineers and security people running the WTC complex NEVER THOUGHT to set up security protocols for contractors doing work in the buildings, particularly after the 2/26/93, when they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on security?

That's a question I've asked, and of course one to which I will never get an answer. Tell me, indicating your knowledge of what procedures were in place for construction work at the World Trade Center, how these explosive planters got in with their explosives and equipment in a building where you couldn't scratch your ass without being seen by the team seated before the huge bank of screens in the Security Control Center, how they got access to where they would have to get access and how they were never detected. I'm all ears.

From 1999 to 2000, I was on 82 working in an office that solicited and managed contracts for work within certain office space. One of my contracts was for the standalone a/c units, 14- and 28-ton units supplementing areas where equipment could heat up an area which in turn would possible damage the equipment, such as the NYS police radio room up on the 110th floor or the above-mentioned SCC.

I got a work order because a unit wasn't working properly on one of the engineering floors. I called the guy, who, of course, was vetted and background checked before he was given an access card, and told him to attend to the unit on that floor. An hour or so later, I got a call from the receptionist at the entrance on that floor telling me that there was someone there that she didn't know who wanted access to the room where the unit was--did I send him? He had his building access ID, but she didn't know he was coming, and so she wasn't going to let him go anywhere without verification. That's how it was.

The Marvin Bush story is played and stupider than stupid. Marvin Bush once sat on the board of directors of a conglomerate that once owned a security consulting firm that the PA had contracted with for services. Of course, since Marvin Bush was the brother of George Bush, that MUST mean...something.


There is no such thing as "an official story", and that's where you went wrong in the first place. There is only what happened, and it's far more interesting and fascinating than the misguided **** you clutch onto so desperately. It's a pity you refuse to look into it.

Of course, cisco kid, I know you won't read this or do any thinking as a result of it because you have been hanging onto the truther thing for YEARS, but you opened the door and I thought others might find it interesting. I hope someone does.