There is no question the neocons in the administration were incompetent they showed that again and again. But extrapolating that into a conspiracy whose sole target was to allow 9/11 is too much. "allowing the conditions in which an attack is predictable" is a ridiculous standard that can never be met without locking down society to an extent never seen in peace time. We certainly haven't met it since 9/11. But you're being disingenuous again, you don't believe in LIH or why care about the commission? Why care about WTC7 or the Pentagon? You aren't arguing "why" things happened you are arguing that "what" happened isn't as it's being reported by everyone else. You are either trying to fool us or are fooling yourself when you try to be LIH.

Does an operation to start a war:

a) not "call for people to be killed" or

b)"call for people to be killed"

I said the operation called for people to be killed. There are two ways I know of that this is true. One is that the predictable and intended consequence, the purpose of the the operation, is to start a war. The other way is the initial phase itself. I cited a link to ABC news.

You say no, the operation does not call for people to be killed. I'll set aside a discussion of your naivete for a second and focus on the literal. Can you show me where it says that no one is going to be killed? Or cite some kind of critique or review that says this? You can't win even if you did but you seem stuck on it so go ahead and go for the pyrrhic quartering.


Have you read it? I read a little just now. It's not that big a document and I don't know how much of the original is available. But one of the first sentences I came across was "We could sink a boatload of cubans (real or simulated)". Does that sentence change your mind or just give you some more daily lulz?

I know because it says *simulated* or *mock* in basically every quotation and the one you read is the only one that even suggests otherwise. So lets see, when every other quotation suggests nothing but mock and then you scan quickly and for the one that doesn't (except it doesnt) while spanking it.... what conclusion do you want to come to?


Wait! But It said "Or!"

Dope.

Also, this is not the way it works, sweetness.

This is a pretty pathetic reach, even for you. The operation calls for what it calls for.

"New stupid things".

You're so bright kerowo.

The truth is so freakin obvious and you sit here and just regurgitate it like a 6 month old who has the flu.

Explain one of the million discrepencies in the BS swiss cheese story.

No plane wreckage, not a drop of blood.

But kerowo calls it stupid so clearly it is. Whos stupid?

You are stupid.

No, you are.

Very stupid as a matter of fact.

So funny how wrong you people are. Not a shred of common sense do you people possess.

That was a stupid post.

As I've said, in either scenario, no one was fired or went to jail. So what do you think?

You're a stupid life-form.

Who said that "internet kooks" are the only ones aware of the truth.

Plenty of people know the truth. Just because people werent court martialed or fired it doesnt mean anything.

So the only thing missing from the perfect crime of the century is that they were too stupid to offer up a scapegoat? Again, are they too stupid or too smart?

I'm still waiting to hear what the death of OBL has to do with the 9/11 ""conspiracy?""

*It's so stupid (like your FACE!) that it requires double air quotes.

No I'm not. You are.

not that I "need" to answer that question... but there are elements of both, to be sure. Stupid to corrupt the Kean Report from start to finish, but smart enough to realize that with the DoJ in your pocket, who cares?

Now answer my question. Thanks.

The operation calls for war. Here is another quote for you, from the introductory paragraphs in which the document calls itself a "description of pretexts which could provide justification for US military intervention into Cuba".

As I have directly quoted from the document, a skimming of the document saw that the plans involved the possible intentional killing of a boatload of cubans (anti-castro US friendly cubans) seeking asylum here. What do you call that? I call it murder. Maybe you call it an introduction to the virtues of capitalism.

The Bamford and other critical reviews of operation northwoods are more insightful than reading the document itself because they look into the momentum behind it and the thoughts and orientation of the planners. You have been shown to be flat wrong in your interpretation on every level, including the literal level. But the literal level doesn't even matter that much. In all their communications regarding the attempted extermination of an entire race, the nazis never directly said they were killing people. Good thing we had people at Nuremberg capable of greater than your grade school level analysis.

Apologists are often despicable in their attempts to mitigate the stench of inhuman atrocities. You are below that. Apologists say yeah, it was bad but blah blah blah. You, on the other hand, are actually defending the virtue of an attempted atrocity by denial. Do you see the difference? Do you see that you are being scum?

Well when the same agencies that supposedly fail us are the same ones training the people and know damn well what their intentions are as well as inadequately responding after previous attacks (and many other proven failings) I think that increases their liability when we are attacked by those very people.

Even after the attacks Bush was asked about Bin Laden and he said he "doesn't think about him that much to be honest". Do you not see how that is criminal in it's negligence?

So what are your standards for LIH?


I believe LIH is established. I think there is a chance that the anticipated attacks were enhanced but I don't think that has been proved. I don't think it's possible that it was an according to Hoyle false flag dreamed up and executed by Americans.

I'm interested to know how any poster who believes the official story defines the minimum qualifications for LIH. I gave some example standards a few posts back.

LOL you are so cute when you are talking about things you know nothing about (which is always) I should just stop because you Godwined, but ill indulge you for a second.

So a second hand interpretation of the document is more valuable than the document itself. Why, is it written in sanskrit? Is it translated from ancient greek? I am going by what the document calls for. You don't want to do that, because if you did you couldn't argue this anymore. Some guy's interpretation fits yours, so lets run with it. Nevermind what it actually says.

And, oh yea, the reason we know the Nazis actually wanted to kill people is because they actually killed people you ****ing moron

Its another obvious instance of the U.S Government lying to us.

Unfortunately if you're a blind baboon you wont be able to see it or make anything of it though.

Blind people gonna Stevie Wonder

I've shown you what the document calls for by quoting it directly. You're just another denier scumball .

LOL. Concession accepted.

Read this. Contrary to popular belief, just because it is on some random site it does not mean that it is all B.S. A lot of this stuff is very true.

Do you consider the "US Government" to be one unchanging entity?