Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Troofer in exchange concedes "might be wrong".

Posted 2 years ago on March 4, 2012, 3:22 p.m. EST by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

February 23, 2011 Author: Jon Gold Source: YBBS Date: December 4, 2008

During my recent debate with 9/11 “debunker” Pat Curley, in his closing statement – after listing a plethora of different theories from a whole spectrum of individuals, including many I do not endorse – he asked, “would anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement say, “well, OK, we were wrong?” if, in fact, a new investigation found that we were. He then answered his own question by saying, “and the answer is “of course not,” so stop pretending that all you want is another investigation – you want another investigation that comes to the conclusions that you believe.” Just to show him that we’re not the close-minded people he thinks we are, here’s a list of some things we might be wrong about. We might be wrong to think that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush should have wanted to investigate anything and everything that led to the horrible attacks of 9/11, instead of trying to “limit the scope” of those investigations, and fight against the families who wanted them, and rightfully so. We might be wrong to think that our intelligence agencies should have known something was up because of the suspicious trading that took place prior to 9/11. Trading that they monitor. We might be wrong to think that ALL of the suspicious trading should have been thoroughly investigated by the 9/11 Commission, and that their conclusion that the trading was “innocuous” is wrong. We might be wrong to think that the multitude of warnings our Government received prior to 9/11 should have caused people within the Bush Administration to warn the American public, and take precautions to make sure the attacks didn’t succeed. We might be wrong to think that former Atty Gen. of New York, Eliot Spitzer, should have responded to the Justice for 9/11 Citizens’ Complaint and Petition delivered to his office in 2004. We might be wrong to think that a good friend of Dick Cheney’s, Lee Hamilton, someone known for covering up other things like the October Surprise, and the Iran/Contra Affair, should not have been made the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission. We might be wrong to think that people like Robert Mueller should have answered all of the families’ questions when they were asking him to his face. We might be wrong to think that someone with so many conflicts of interest with the Bush Administration, Philip Zelikow, should not have been put in charge of the 9/11 Commission. We might be wrong to be concerned about a statement by former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland that says, “as each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.” We might be wrong to think that the multiple wargames taking place on the morning of 9/11 caused confusion on the ground, and that ALL of them should have been thoroughly investigated. We might be wrong to think that Donald Rumsfeld should have responded in writing to former Rep. Cynthia McKinney about her question regarding the wargames taking place that morning. We might be wrong to think that the most defended airspace in the world should not have been left completely undefended 34 minutes after the second tower was hit, when everyone in the world knew America was under attack. We might be wrong to think that either Dick Cheney, Richard Myers, Ralph Eberhart or Donald Rumsfeld somehow impeded the air response that morning. We might be wrong to think that members of our Government should not meet with an alleged financier of the attacks without being brought forward publicly to testify about those meetings. We might be wrong to think that elements within our Government and others collaborate with the Pakistani ISI to initiate terrorist attacks around the world in order to create a “strategy of tension.” We might be wrong to think that someone like Shyam Sunder should have met with people like Dr. Steven Jones to at least look at the information he has collected. We might be wrong to think that the Bush Administration should not have done everything in their power to cover up possible Saudi Arabian involvement. We might be wrong to think that Israeli spies in this country prior to 9/11 should have been investigated thoroughly. We might be wrong to think that someone like Khalil Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden’s brother, a person with alleged ties to terrorism, should not have been allowed to leave the country so soon after 9/11 without having been thoroughly investigated. We might be wrong to think that the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry should be de-classified. We might be wrong to think that whistleblowers should not be retaliated against, or gagged because they were trying to do the right thing. We might be wrong to think that the Secret Service should have immediately moved the President out of Emma E. Booker Elementary that morning in order to protect him, the children, and the school faculty present. We might be wrong to think that the President should have immediately wanted to deal with the occurring crisis instead of continuing with a photo-op. We might be wrong to think that 9/11 should not have been used to take away our civil liberties, and start pre-emptive wars against countries that had nothing to do with the attacks. We might be wrong to think that the murder of 2,973 people should be treated as a crime instead of as an “act of war.” We might be wrong to think that the media in this country should cover things like family members calling for an entirely new investigation on two separate occasions. We might be wrong to think that everyone that was in the PEOC should have been brought forward to testify publicly and under oath about what happened that morning. We might be wrong to think that Dick Cheney and George Bush should have been made to testify publicly and under oath. We might be wrong to think that there shouldn’t be a single family member with doubts about how their loved one was murdered, and who was responsible for it. We might be wrong to think that the heroes of 9/11 should be given the health care that they need, and that those who lied about the air quality should be held accountable. We might be wrong to think that if people acted either incompetently or criminally within our Government, then they should be held accountable, as opposed to being promoted or rewarded. We might be wrong to think that the event that created the “Post-9/11 World” should be THOROUGHLY investigated to make sure all of the actions taken in the name of that day are justified, responsible, and in we, the people’s best interests. In conclusion, I’d like to say that yes, we may very well be wrong. On the other hand, we may very well be right. If we are right, and I’m certain that we are, at least about SOME of it, would you Pat Curley, would you Mark Roberts, would you Ron Wieck, would you James Bennett, would you Troy Sexton, would you Jim Miegs, would you Michael Shermer, would you Chip Berlet, would you members of JREF… would you… would you… hmmm… are there any more debunkers than that? Would you admit you were wrong? Would you apologize to all of the families you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the first responders you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement you have slandered, harassed, and/or threatened? Either by directly taking part in these acts, or by promoting them? Would you apologize to the 9/11 Truth Movement for trying to paint us all as crazies by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe? Would you? Of course not so stop pretending like you know anything about 9/11 because you certainly do not.

1 Comments

1 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by anonymouse (154) 2 years ago

you forgot the infamous gormless shill, albury smith.. as evidenced by his inordinate amount of official spin regurgitation, ( a quick google for albury smith 911 will show a history of his commenting on every blog concerning 911, posting the same lies, distortions and obfuscations ad nauseam, 24/7 ) this shows that he is either paid to do this or has severe mental disabilities, as pointed out by most everyone who has the misfortune to have ever crossed paths with the unflushable turd, and is as obvious as is the explosive destruction of the 3 towers that day.

the only people who would argue against a transparent, unfettered independent investigation into the events of 911 are those with a vested interest in supressing the truth.

frankly, to hope that albury would voluntarily disclose such things as his real name and qualifications, to add just the slightest credence to anything he says, is as likely as there will ever be credible proof beyond all reasonable doubt that bin laden was killed in may of 2011.

ie; NONE

there is irefutable evidence that the events of 911 did not happen as we are being told,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jazdG3-ZETM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iND-b8Q3jc

but despite that, and despite not being asked, albury will continue to offer his unqualified, anonymous opinion, as if he is the final arbiter of truth, in relation to ANYTHING to do with 911. a self proclaimed expert..

its so pathetic, if it wasnt for the fact that on the backs of the lies of that fateful day, hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children have been killed, civil and constitutional rights have been shredded, and the world has been subjected to a never ending war of terror, it would be funny.

This video puts to rest ALL of alburys arguments and shows exactly why 911 needs a proper investigation. Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) - 10 Years After 9/11 The Official Account Does Not Add Up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY