100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > HotRodDeluxe
|
|
|
While he's probably almost as much of a liar as any politician, because he isn't a politician, I'm inclined to give this guy's opinion more weight. It's an interesting take on 9/11 and IMO bang on the money as far as the JFK assassination.: http://www.morningliberty.com/2011/07/31/gambino-fingers-vatican-jesuit-priests-bush-behind-911/  Oh, that was spun gold! These stories just get sillier. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 02/25/13 04:11 AM
|
|
This book by John Farmer? The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue... The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php Yes, the book you haven't read that you insist on quoting that BS review about. Here's what the truther David Griffin has to say about it: A Deeply Flawed Book By David R. Griffin Although John Farmer's "The Ground Truth" has attracted a lot of favorable attention, it is a deeply flawed book, containing misleading claims and providing an extremely one-sided account of 9/11. Much of the attention received by the book has been prompted by misleading claims made by Farmer and his publisher. The book's dust-jacket calls it the "definitive account" of 9/11, but it actually deals almost entirely with only one question about that day: why the airliners were not intercepted. Also, the book's subtitle calls it "the untold story" of 9/11 and its dust-jacket says that it "breathtakingly revises" our understanding of that day. In reality, however, it simply provides new support for the story told about the planes in "The 9/11 Commission Report," which appeared in 2004, and in two publications that appeared in 2006: Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's book "Without Precedent," and Michael Bronner's essay in "Vanity Fair." Most provocatively, Farmer presents his book as a rejection of the "official" account of 9/11, which was given by "the government," by which he means primarily the FAA and the Pentagon. But this rhetoric is misleading for three reasons. First, Farmer's book is a defense of the 9/11 Commission's report, which he calls "accurate, and true" (2), and the Commission was itself a governmental body: its chairman, Thomas Kean, was appointed by Bush; the other members were appointed by Congress; and the executive director, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush White House. Second, the "official account of 9/11," as generally understood, is the Bush-Cheney administration's conspiracy theory, according to which the 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and some members of al-Qaeda, and Farmer supports this theory. Third, in rejecting the "official version," Farmer is referring only to the first version of the official account. It was replaced in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission's version, which since then has been the official version of the official account. In spite of his rhetoric, therefore, Farmer is defending the official account of 9/11 produced by the government in 2004, so the book is far less radical than it has been promoted as being. http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/review-of-john-farmers-the Griffin is a truther, so he would hate Farmer's book (he doesn't want anyone taking his sales). You really should read it. As I've stated repeatedly to you, this book is not what you hope it might be, and I highly recommend it to you. I've offered you my copy before, but you didn't take it up. Oh, well. The Salem news reviewer never read it, he just copied the sales pitch. I look forward to the next time you post this. Now, if you stick to your script, we should get the same old lies attributed to Mineta regarding what Cheney said. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 02/25/13 01:02 AM
|
|
if you're curious, which I suspect you aren't; it appears to me you would rather parrot & support the current anti-Iran propaganda than try to make an objective finding on the matter. Well, your preconceptions are erroneous, but nonetheless, noted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sun 02/24/13 09:45 PM
|
|
Getting my info from the appropriate agencies instead of the MSM is an "argument from authority fallacy"?... No, using accredited sources is admirable and unusual for Mingle. Clearly, you misunderstood. But thanks for the courtesy of the link, an interesting letter giving the Iranian perspective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, instead of the argument from authority fallacy, how about you post the links?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sun 02/24/13 06:18 PM
|
|
The same old nonsense, eh BIS? Are you going to drag out Farmer's misrepresented quote, or Mineta's distorted evidence next? You don't seem to have much of a repertoire. I know! It might be the old dancing Jews and Mossad story. That always gets the punters in! None, actually. When are you going to show me some? In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy. You only have to know two things. One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs. It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ My comprehension skills are excellent. Now, if you read Farmer's book, you'd know that Roberts' opinion is incorrect. Farmer's book actually demonstrates that everything Roberts finds incredulous, actually happened. Amazing huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The same old nonsense, eh BIS? Are you going to drag out Farmer's misrepresented quote, or Mineta's distorted evidence next? You don't seem to have much of a repertoire. I know! It might be the old dancing Jews and Mossad story. That always gets the punters in! None, actually. When are you going to show me some? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sun 02/24/13 03:25 PM
|
|
The same old nonsense, eh BIS?
Are you going to drag out Farmer's misrepresented quote, or Mineta's distorted evidence next? You don't seem to have much of a repertoire. I know! It might be the old dancing Jews and Mossad story. That always gets the punters in! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the fires.. the fires If it wasn't that hot in the impact zone why were people jumping to their deaths? You would think they would have sat around in their offices waiting for rescue if the fires weren't an issue..  There is no fire as this pic clearly shows.. Clearly. And as there was no fire, the trusses couldn't have sagged causing the buckling evinced prior to the collapse. It's obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no point debunking these stupid theories because the CTer's won't alter their belief system. Ain't it the truth! It's been 12 years since 9/11 and it looks like most people still believe the fanciful tale spun by the liars in Washington.  I wouldn't say 'most people', because in my experience it's not the case, but many do adhere to these flights of fancy without a shred of evidence or reason. It's remarkable what irrational belief systems take hold in some individuals, but then, where would religion be without that human failing? Ah, well, that's Mingle for you. i always liked the logic of "there's no way they could have flown those planes"... i'm guessing they never played with any flight simulator... Or 'how could they have flown those planes into buildings?' They didn't, they crashed them. 'How could a 757/767 withstand the stresses at those speeds at that altitude?' They didn't, they crashed. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 02/23/13 01:49 PM
|
|
There is no point debunking these stupid theories because the CTer's won't alter their belief system. Ain't it the truth! It's been 12 years since 9/11 and it looks like most people still believe the fanciful tale spun by the liars in Washington. I wouldn't say 'most people', because in my experience it's not the case, but many do adhere to these flights of fancy without a shred of evidence or reason. It's remarkable what irrational belief systems take hold in some individuals, but then, where would religion be without that human failing? Ah, well, that's Mingle for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 02/23/13 06:47 AM
|
|
These 9/11 threads crack me up. When I see one I just make some popcorn & watch the show. My favourite part is all the fun ad hominem words used....I especially like the "truther" & "twoofer" schtick. In fact those words are so entertaining I just had to ask... Which one is better to be?... a "truther" or a "liar?" They crack me up as well. I'm continuously amazed and the poor reasoning skills and lack of education evinced by my fellow humans. 'Truther' is a misnomer, as in fact, they promulgate lies. I prefer 'twoofer', as coined by a group of debunkers years ago, because the CTer's appeared to suffer from learning disabilities and mental abnormalities. 'Truther' is a name the movement awarded to itself, but in fact, the movement is built on misinformation, misrepresentation of evidence, poor logic and prejudice. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A belief system doesn't qualify as evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This about sums up every 9/11 thread on any forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 02/23/13 12:30 AM
|
|
BIS, how old is this long debunked nonsense you keep dragging up?
@JustDukky. There is no point debunking these stupid theories because the CTer's won't alter their belief system. They don't even read or open anything presented so it's clearly a waste of time. I've presented ample evidence exposing the lies behind the twoofer movement continuously, yet no-one evens looks at it. A series of videos produced by JREF deals with most of the above, but if I posted them, would you even bother watching them? Would anyone even bother addressing the content without raving about Jews, Bankers or other irrelevant BS? I doubt it. Experience has shown me that it is impossible to debate this subject with any degree of accuracy, because most are unable to assess the evidence with any degree of competence, or impartiality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 02/21/13 10:01 PM
|
|
Hitler was an anti-Semite and being English Aristocrats, the family was out of Hitler's reach. I thought the contention about the Rothschilds is that they were Jews. Now you are calling them English Aristocrats? Lord denotes aristocrat. What is your problem here? Did you not read my post about the branch in Austria? Did you read the whole post at all before you responded to this? They were rich bankers, and Zionists. The reason they were not taken and killed by Hitler is because they are obviously not "Jews" at all and they were helping finance Hitler's rise to power. Either that, or Hitler was told just to collect just every day hard working Jews, and leave the wealthy banker Jews alone. If that is the case, then his hatred for Jews had nothing to do with their Banking practices. Rothschild Zionists and Hitler were partners. The Morgans took over the financing of both sides of the war for the Rothschilds who wanted to distance themselves from Hitler. Hitler was even said to be a Rothschild himself. Have you any way of verifying this trash? Of course, but it would take a long time and I don't have the time to waste. Do your own work. I don't care. I verified the points in your previous post and proved much of it to be false. This latest post is even more illogical and again lacking in links to any source. But thanks, your lack of co-operation and poor debating skills just give me cause to ignore your drivel for the trash it is. Prove it false then. Don't just make claims, Convince me. I know you don't understand 'burden of proof' so I won't bother going through that concept yet again. You're not making me jump through hoops for your pleasure. Anyone can see your contention is crap just by my cursory investigation into your previous post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hitler was an anti-Semite and being English Aristocrats, the family was out of Hitler's reach. I thought the contention about the Rothschilds is that they were Jews. Now you are calling them English Aristocrats? Lord denotes aristocrat. What is your problem here? Did you not read my post about the branch in Austria? Did you read the whole post at all before you responded to this? They were rich bankers, and Zionists. The reason they were not taken and killed by Hitler is because they are obviously not "Jews" at all and they were helping finance Hitler's rise to power. Either that, or Hitler was told just to collect just every day hard working Jews, and leave the wealthy banker Jews alone. If that is the case, then his hatred for Jews had nothing to do with their Banking practices. Rothschild Zionists and Hitler were partners. The Morgans took over the financing of both sides of the war for the Rothschilds who wanted to distance themselves from Hitler. Hitler was even said to be a Rothschild himself. Have you any way of verifying this trash? Of course, but it would take a long time and I don't have the time to waste. Do your own work. I don't care. I verified the points in your previous post and proved much of it to be false. This latest post is even more illogical and again lacking in links to any source. But thanks, your lack of co-operation and poor debating skills just give me cause to ignore your drivel for the trash it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 02/21/13 09:32 PM
|
|
Hitler was an anti-Semite and being English Aristocrats, the family was out of Hitler's reach. I thought the contention about the Rothschilds is that they were Jews. Now you are calling them English Aristocrats? Lord denotes aristocrat. What is your problem here? Did you not read my post about the branch in Austria? Did you read the whole post at all before you responded to this? They were rich bankers, and Zionists. The reason they were not taken and killed by Hitler is because they are obviously not "Jews" at all and they were helping finance Hitler's rise to power. Either that, or Hitler was told just to collect just every day hard working Jews, and leave the wealthy banker Jews alone. If that is the case, then his hatred for Jews had nothing to do with their Banking practices. Rothschild Zionists and Hitler were partners. The Morgans took over the financing of both sides of the war for the Rothschilds who wanted to distance themselves from Hitler. Hitler was even said to be a Rothschild himself. Have you any way of verifying this trash? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BIS seems to feel that popularity confirms his contention's accuracy. I have yet to see proof of the supposed popularity Exactly, it is just that he has argued from popularity on a number of occasions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 02/21/13 09:28 PM
|
|
Here is a good question. If Hitler hated Jews because of the way they were taking over the banking and finance aspects of Germany and the Rothschilds were considered to be "German Jews," (as history claims) then how did this family escape the holocaust? Hitler was an anti-Semite and being English Aristocrats, the family was out of Hitler's reach. After all, didn't Hitler accuse international Jewish bankers of engineering the Versailles Treaty which destroyed Germany financially? Wasn't Hitler's wrath aimed squarely in the direction of the international Jewish bankers, namely the House of Rothschild? The reality of the Versailles treaty was the imposition of war reparations by the Allies. Of course Hitler hated the Jewish bankers, he was a vehement anti-Semite. Thankfully, most international bankers were living abroad, as (obviously) Berlin was not a strong financial centre at the time. Hitler did say, "The bigger the lie…the more people will believe it". Yes, this was his MO. That is how he coerced the people into acts of anti-Semitism (it is known as the fear of the common enemy technique), and that is how he achieved his position. Think about it...Did Hitler kill any Jewish international bankers? The answer is no. Well, obviously not, as most were living in international financial centres (e.g. London, Geneva, New York). In fact some members of the Warburg banking family were given a Nazi escort out of Holland in a sealed train. So were many other Jews. Virtually all members of the German Warburg family had fled to the United States or Great Britain by 1938. However, two cousins, mother and daughter Gerta and Betty Warburg, stayed in Altona. They were murdered in the Sobibor extermination camp in 1940. Eric Warburg, son of Max Warburg, returned to Germany and was influential in restoring Germany's reputation after the Second World War. Eric's son, also called Max, is currently a partner in M.M. Warburg & CO. in Hamburg. ..When the Gestapo went to the Rothschild mansion to arrest the head of the Vienna branch they were told by the butler to come back the following day. They did. Then they had to wait for the Baron to finish his lunch... Oddly enough, I have been unable to verify this anecdote, however... After the Anschluß (Annexation) of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938, the family were forced to flee and the estates seized by the Nazis. The Rothschild family fled and the Nazi seizure included their palaces and priceless collections. The Gestapo moved in and used the Palais in Vienna for their interrogations. The building itself was heavily damaged during Allied bombing raids in 1944. There WAS the case of the estranged wife of a French Rothschild. "Why should the Germans harm me?" she had asked her husband in 1940. "I am from an old French family." Despite disowning the Rothschild family name (unheard of!) and reverting to her original title of nobility, she was arrested by the Gestapo in July 1944 and sent by the last transport to Ravensbruck where she was brutally murdered...] Pray tell, what does this prove to you? She didn't survive the Gestapo so....? "Morgan is referred to by many, including Congressman Louis McFadden, (a banker who for ten years headed the House Banking and Currency Committee), as the top American agent of the English Rothschilds." So, how is 'agent' interpreted exactly? A financial sense? A link placing the quote in context is important here. So the question remains…Was Hitler a Rothschild customer or an agent as well? Well, the question does remain for the above did nothing to prove it whatsoever. Actually, the whole post didn't explain your contention very well at all. Furthermore, some of the so-called 'facts' were tenuous or incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
