Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Interesting clip about the demolition of the WTC
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
BS, give us a link to a decent news source.
Blair ADMITS the downing street memo is a true document.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6736
I see a story saying Blair admits they are real, but it doesn't contain a single quote from Blair.
I gave the quotes of the reporter telling how he faked the doccuments. The memos you have seen are not real, they aren't even photocopies. They are aged fakes that can NOT be authenticated by anyone unless the source memos are found.
You quoted the reporter saying he took photocopies of the original documents. Please show me a specific quote from him - with a link to said quote - where he says they're fakes, without embellishing it with your embarrassing fountain of lies.
I ask you respectfully, can you read? The British Secretary of State and the head of their intelligence agency, as well as Tony Blair have confirmed their authenticity.
From The Raw Story which may or may not be a reliable source. But being a liberal rag I think you would be willing to trust it. It tells how he faked the documents, and it has the memos in PDF files. Notice how aged they look. Why go to such lengths to fake their age? Why not just type them up in PDF in the first place and just tell everyone that these are reproductions that were made to protect the source? It would have been much more believable than going to such lengths to make fakes and later admitting they were fake.
LMFAO. Man you're cracking me up. This is the same link I just posted on the end of Page 1!
You posted it to try and convince people the documents are fake but the entire point of the article is that the documents are authentic. It's like showing someone a four-leafed clover to try and prove they don't exist! LOL
He even blows your made-up pack of lies out of the water by explaining why the docs were retyped: “Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter. The copying and re-typing were necessary because markings on the originals might have identified his source"
Where exactly does he say that they're not copies of the official documents?
And the reason for the aging? And why an old fashioned typewriter? And if he was just protecting his source, why did the original story say these were the actual memos?
Because if they were to be printed in a newspaper, an image of an official document would make more attractive copy than a verbose transcript. Pretty obvious really.
Please show me a quote from the original story saying that these were the actual memos. It's interesting that I make an effort to link my references, while you make an effort not to link yours.
And I'm still waiting for the quote from the reporter saying that the memos were fake. Let's see it.
Tony Blair confirms the authenticity of the memos
fake
adj 1: fraudulent; having a misleading appearance 2: not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article; n 1: something that is a counterfeit; not what it seems to be
Fake. He said they aren't originals, yet they were presented as originals. They were artifically aged (why age memos that are supposedely only a couple of years old?). And why not use the originals? It would be easy to cover up or cut out anything that would point to the source while leaving everything that is in them now intact. Maybe it isn't so easy to change a few things here and there is you use the originals.
Typed up and scanned last year? Yep, this reporter wasn't out to decieve anyone.
Stupid boards
BTW, why don't those stories saying Blair admits the memos are real have any quotes from Blair?
Nm nt
Odd how similar the two stories are turning out to be.
All your questions have already been answered.
I showed you a direct quote from the reporter explaining that markings on the original copies could have compromised the identity of the original author and still you ask why copies were necessary. Do you need things repeated incessantly over and over again before you can understand them?
I asked you to show me exactly where it was ever claimed they were the original copies, and you've failed to do so.
I've given you links showing that several high-up public officials, including Tony Blair, the Home Secretary and the head of the intelligence agency have confirmed the authenticity of the contents of the documents, and still you insist they're not authentic.
Heh true. I edited my post though, so as not to bring even more area of discussion into this.
Too much mis-information on both sides already.
Hitler didn't start as a dictator, and Bush isn't another Hitler.
Obfuscation and misdirection have been present in politics for a long long time. Pushing your agenda and sweeping certain facts under the rug and downright lying are still a far cry from actually organising a terror attack.
Arrogantly assuming the CIA and NSA reports of imminent danger meant nothing prior to 9/11 is a character flaw. America was arrogant and still somewhat is. As is any country that has not had to live under a spectre of fear and assumes there are not a target.
Not even close. He claimed that copies would give away the source, but he doesn't say why they would. If they were typed memos, the identifying parts could be removed or blacked out easily enough. You claimed they were aged to make a better story. So you admit he lied right there by presenting fakes. And since not all the memos were in the original story, why were the others faked? And why did he just recently come out and admit they were fakes. That was NOT in the original story. Why was that part left out of the original story?
And with all the links you keep showing NONE OF THEM show a quote from Blair authenticating the information in the memos.
Yes he did. He said it was because of certain markings on the original documents. Again this shows us that you need things repeated over and over before you can understand them (and you still fail to understand them).
Please show me where in the original printed news story that it was claimed that they were the original documents. This is the third time I've asked you to do this. See if you can actually do it this time.
They weren't "faked". They were copied. I think you're getting a little carried away with your lies at this point. If you take a photocopy of a document do you call it a fake? Of course not. It's a copy.
Please show me a quote where he says the documents are fakes.
Because it's irrelevent. You seem determined to labor the most insignifant points.
You're suggesting that Tony Blair said no such thing, which obviously isn't the case or he would have issued a public statement to the effect that the majority of the British media were printing falsehoods.
Seriously though, I'm done with you. You've obviously made a decision that the docs are false and are determined to twist the facts around your lie. I don't expect you to agree but the contents of the docs are extremely thought provoking, and their endorsement by certain public figures stands as testament to this fact.
Lol, of course it doesn't help that the site is advertising 'become a pre-cog' above the video.
I don't know, 911 seems to be an overly complicated operation to get the ends that the conspirators wanted. They could've just as easily planted nuclear weapons in Iraq, or staged another USS Cole incident. I'd wager even a much smaller terrorist attack on US soil would have captured the same reaction.
If people feel the evidence has any validity, file a law suit.
Seems like the CIA/MI5 did the bombings in London too: Clicky
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.
quick response to something earlier in the thread.
of course there were makings of WMD's in iraq, they were moved 10 days before u.s got there, by russians.
you wont hear this because the u.s. does not want to start a war against someone who can actually bomb us back.
[b][quote]We had proof that Saddam had weapons programs because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM back in the 80's. Unfortunately or not, his other military excursions took their toll on his supplies and equipment. Why on God's green earth would he not use the weapons against us if he had them? Make some sense man.
If you listen to "Pills" Limbaugh, the Downing Street Memos were a fake.
Bottom line is that those planes were flown into the towers by remote control. At least seven of the purported hijackers are still alive with one having died two years before 9/11 ever happened. And I have a sneaking suspicion that the Pennsylvania plane was shot down because the remote control system failed. Allowing that plane to land and blow the cover story would have brought down the president in all liklihood.
Ask youyself this simple question. Why have they never shown the video of the plane impacting the Pentagon? Why have they never shown the video of the hijackers inside of the airports? Why is it so hard for you to believe that governments can and do commit atrocities against their people. Governments make terrorism possible.
I've recently had one of those lightbulb moments. When a boxer enters a ring, does he expect anything but violence, or does one act violent while the other writes poetry and philosophy? By entering into the ring, you are committing yourself to kill or be killed (in a matter of speaking). Well, the whole world is like that boxing ring in a sense. Only no one asked to be in it so we all must cooperate with each other to make life easy. Some participants in this ring (the world) refuse to be civil. The minute ANY of them think about fielding an army, regardless of size, by all rights, they are fair game with any others doing the same. You cannot build the weapons of war and not compete. If you don't like getting attacked, then do not build the army. I know the above makes no sense for the bushies in the crowd here, but that's why the world is screwed up. You have been lied to and tricked, and of course, so was I at one time.[/b][/quote]
Like I said, he hid them. We told him we were coming for a year, OF COURSE he would get them out or hide them any way he could. He had a whole year to do this. The only way to know for sure is if we surprise attacked him.
So the Pennsylvania plane was shot down? Don't remember the phone calls of the heroes onboard trying to retake the cockpit? I do. Tell that to that man's wife who he was talking to. You are wrong about that, and those phone calls are proof.
They did show video of the hijackers in the airports, I guess you didn't watch the news that whole day. Did you even watch for YOURSELF that day what happened? Seems not.
Why the hell would that "reporter" that uncovered the downing street memos destroy them and recopy them? He could have just as easily embellished them as he "re wrote them". I really want to hear the response to this one.
Where did you get your information that the hijackers never existed or one of them died? Link to credible site? Not some liberal douchebag propaganda site, a real site. CNN, MSNC, BBC, FOX, something CREDIBLE.
You really are having trouble paying attention aren't you? They were destroyed to protect the identity of the author. Maybe you should write this on your hand so you can remember it.
Classic comedy! ROFL
[quote]Originally posted by Badhawk
[b][b][quote]We had proof that Saddam had weapons programs because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM back in the 80's. Unfortunately or not, his other military excursions took their toll on his supplies and equipment. Why on God's green earth would he not use the weapons against us if he had them? Make some sense man.
If you listen to "Pills" Limbaugh, the Downing Street Memos were a fake.
Bottom line is that those planes were flown into the towers by remote control. At least seven of the purported hijackers are still alive with one having died two years before 9/11 ever happened. And I have a sneaking suspicion that the Pennsylvania plane was shot down because the remote control system failed. Allowing that plane to land and blow the cover story would have brought down the president in all liklihood.
Ask youyself this simple question. Why have they never shown the video of the plane impacting the Pentagon? Why have they never shown the video of the hijackers inside of the airports? Why is it so hard for you to believe that governments can and do commit atrocities against their people. Governments make terrorism possible.
I've recently had one of those lightbulb moments. When a boxer enters a ring, does he expect anything but violence, or does one act violent while the other writes poetry and philosophy? By entering into the ring, you are committing yourself to kill or be killed (in a matter of speaking). Well, the whole world is like that boxing ring in a sense. Only no one asked to be in it so we all must cooperate with each other to make life easy. Some participants in this ring (the world) refuse to be civil. The minute ANY of them think about fielding an army, regardless of size, by all rights, they are fair game with any others doing the same. You cannot build the weapons of war and not compete. If you don't like getting attacked, then do not build the army. I know the above makes no sense for the bushies in the crowd here, but that's why the world is screwed up. You have been lied to and tricked, and of course, so was I at one time.[/b][/quote]
Like I said, he hid them. We told him we were coming for a year, OF COURSE he would get them out or hide them any way he could. He had a whole year to do this. The only way to know for sure is if we surprise attacked him.
Why would he not use them if he had them? What's the incentive to not use them, knowing full well, that at his potential trial, he could be sentenced to death. Why not take a few of your enemy with you?
So the Pennsylvania plane was shot down? Don't remember the phone calls of the heroes onboard trying to retake the cockpit? I do. Tell that to that man's wife who he was talking to. You are wrong about that, and those phone calls are proof.
I remember the stories about how people were making phone calls from the planes. Who doesn't? What's not explained is the fact that not one instance ever occured where the person on the plane was in direct communication with the person they were trying to call. It was always through some intermediary, namely an operator. Also, the airline industry is currently working on a service that would allow phone calles to be made from flight WITH RELIABILITY. <<< Clicky then read the third paragraph. How then did the callers place the calls they did?
They did show video of the hijackers in the airports, I guess you didn't watch the news that whole day. Did you even watch for YOURSELF that day what happened? Seems not.
No they didn't. The only video ever shown was that of Atta at a Wal-Mart cash machine the night before. By the way, what did he need the cash for? To bribe the pilots to crash the planes?
Why the hell would that "reporter" that uncovered the downing street memos destroy them and recopy them? He could have just as easily embellished them as he "re wrote them". I really want to hear the response to this one.
Where did you get your information that the hijackers never existed or one of them died? Link to credible site? Not some liberal douchebag propaganda site, a real site. CNN, MSNC, BBC, FOX, something CREDIBLE.
Not that I would expect you to believe me regardless of whatever site I put up, but here goes a small list. You can do the same homework for yourself mind you, but I'm guessing you're too lazy. Just Google 9/11 hijackers alive. Oh, and by the way, the passenger manifests released by CNN show no Arab names let alone those of the hijackers. Google that as well.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
and naturally I'm very biased towards http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
[/b][/qoute]
You really are having trouble paying attention aren't you? They were destroyed to protect the identity of the author. Maybe you should write this on your hand so you can remember it.
Classic comedy! ROFL
How is FOX not credible? It's just a news source like CNN, MSNBC or any others. It is right leaning, and most of the media is left leaning. The only reason its not credible to you is because it's not left leaning.
Hahahahahahaaa!!!!! Keep going man! You're on a roll!!!
Hahahahahahaaa!!!!! Keep going man! You're on a roll!!!
I've figured out you're too much of an liberal self righteous holyier than thou douchebag to even warrant posting in this thread anymore. Have fun with your tin foil hat group sitting around talking about how corrupt the government. In the mean time, I will be joining the marines, and serving my country with pride and distinction. Have fun douche.
Hahahahahahaaa!!!!! Keep going man! You're on a roll!!!
I've figured out you're too much of an liberal self righteous holyier than thou douchebag to even warrant posting in this thread anymore. Have fun with your tin foil hat group sitting around talking about how corrupt the government. In the mean time, I will be joining the marines, and serving my country with pride and distinction. Have fun douche.
Ah, it all becomes clear... A future marine. I wish you'd just said in the first place! You guys are famed for your soaring intellect and perspective.
Don't forget to pack your book of predictable right-wing cliches in case you get caught in an intelligent conversation, and remember if you ever have to blow anyone's head apart and wreck a bunch of lives, it's not really any big deal. It'll be just like Rambo!