Who the hell is Barry Jennings?

Happyman42

Actually reading what is being said on this thread would be a great help.

So the minute Deepthroat was quoted that was it, Nixon put his hands up and Alistair and the great unwashed said, 'right on Deepthroat, you did good fella!'?
The fact is that The Post didn't reveal all in one article, Deepthroat drip fed his information, it took time, it took reams upon reams of ridicule from those who didn't believe Deepthroat or W&B, it took arrests, it took acres of depositions, it took the impeachment of 7 to 10? members of goverment, it took FBI investigations and a Senate committee to finally uphold the veracity of what Deepthroat had to say and it took a Supreme court action demanding the release of the tapes before Nixon decided to go.
You can't depend on hindsight here if you are going to get the point I'm making, you have go back to that time and decide how you would have behaved as the info came out. I suspect that for a while anyways you would have suspected W&B where talking rubbish.


It is no accident that a biography of Nixon was titled 'The Arrogance Of Power'. That arrogance can and has allowed American governments to engage in crimminal misuse of power, even endangering or hurting their own for a percieved 'greater good' and as has been said by wiser than me 'bombing people into the acceptance of gifts'.
Hypotetically: what if it came out that Jennings had indeed been offed because somebody got nervous about what he might say at some future cross examination? Wouldn't that change an awful lot of things.....that is what I mean by some unknown fact yet to emerge and the neccessity to keep digging.
The Bush administration should be investigated for a very long time to come because of what it got involved in as a result of that day.
If you believe the 9-11 case is closed then you have nothing to fear from CTers, leave them to it.

Podman

With regard to the official 911 "story"...

Di0genes wrote: »

..do you prefer that these theories are not scrutinised robustly and their flaws exposed. Or would you rather everyone agree with everyone else, and nothing gets done about anything.

Di0genes wrote: »

For 9/11 to have happened thousands of people would have been involved, yet this has been covered up for more than a decade.

How can certain people call themselves sceptics, when they won't ask the same questions of the official version, as they will of alternative theories?

Podman

Di0genes wrote: »

No one here is saying "well the US government said they didn't carry out 9/11 and thats good enough me".

That's exactly what certain people are saying.

meglome

Podman wrote: »

That's exactly what certain people are saying.

No I think you'll find people are saying show me the evidence. Show me the consistent story... show me the logic. Silly stuff like that.

A lot of the logic appears to be US government = Bad, ergo 911 carried out by US Government.

Di0genes

Podman wrote: »

With regard to the official 911 "story"...




How can certain people call themselves sceptics, when they won't ask the same questions of the official version, as they will of alternative theories?

Okay, please point out some aspect of the "official" version you think I should have a problem with? Please don't come with some pithy rebuttal like "all of it, duh"

That's exactly what certain people are saying.

Certain people here are saying "the US government say they didn't carry out 911, and that's good enough for me?" Here? On this forum?

Usernames and Quotes please.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Actually reading what is being said on this thread would be a great help.

So the minute Deepthroat was quoted that was it, Nixon put his hands up and Alistair and the great unwashed said, 'right on Deepthroat, you did good fella!'?

Nope - who said that? I think (given that you're all about 'Actually reading what is being said') you'll find that the clue to what I'm suggesting lies in this quote:

The Washington Post took two years to piece together the information and draw logical connections between the players and events - unlike the truthers.

The difference between the evidence that Deep Throat directed the journalists towards, and the investigation process that they undertook is that it was evidential-driven. If they hadn't been sure about their facts they didn't publish, for the very good reason that they were vulnerable to litigation - not skepticism. Again - that's the essential difference between following the evidence, and plucking illogical theories out of the ether (the truther process).

alastair

Podman wrote: »

How can certain people call themselves sceptics, when they won't ask the same questions of the official version, as they will of alternative theories?

I'm no skeptic - just looking for some logic to people's positions, but what gives you the idea that I haven't reviewed the NIST documents, 9/11 Commission report etc with exactly the same critique? Ever consider the possibility that there's plausibility to the 'official' narrative, and none to the alternatives, once you actually weigh the evidence?

Case in point - my initial reaction to flight 93 was that it had been shot down - an embarrassing admission if true, and likely to be subject to a cover-up if they thought they could get away with it. That'd be my gut response, but it's a response that simply isn't supported by the evidence once you look. My view changed with the logic of the evidence.

Podman

meglome wrote: »

No I think you'll find people are saying show me the evidence. Show me the consistent story... show me the logic. Silly stuff like that.

The thing is, people are only saying that to the "CTers", not to the governments.

True sceptics would be as inquiring of the official versions as they claim to be of the alternatives.

Di0genes wrote: »

Certain people here are saying "the US government say they didn't carry out 911, and that's good enough for me?" Here? On this forum?

Usernames and Quotes please.

Who do you know who's brave enough to say that on boards?

Instead what we have are replies to alternative theories, full of dismissals, blind denials and the "prove it" chant.

Show me any thread where a CTer asks a question of the official story, or proposes a new theory, and doesn't have someone jump down their throat about it?

Show me another thread where someone states their belief in the official story, and have their claims come under scrutiny?

Podman

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay, please point out some aspect of the "official" version you think I should have a problem with?

You don't need me to tell you what to think, make up your own mind.

Is there some aspect of the "official" version you have ever questioned?

alastair

Podman wrote: »

Who do you know who's brave enough to say that on boards?

So, it's pretty much just a 'feeling' you have then? Nothing solid to support that contention.

Podman wrote: »

Show me another thread where someone states their belief in the official story, and have their claims come under scrutiny?

I posted on a previous thread that I subscribe to the truth of the 9/11 commission report as to the events of the day. If anyone has an issue with the details, I'm more than happy to provide specifics as to why it's based on actual evidence as opposed to imagination.

alastair

Podman wrote: »

You don't need me to tell you what to think, make up your own mind.

Is there some aspect of the "official" version you have ever questioned?

He has made up his mind - that's the point - it was made up based on the evidence - not blind faith in the goodness of the Bush administration or whatever. He's asking for instances of what you believe is specifically in doubt - given that that's your contention, not his.

Podman

Podman wrote: »

You don't need me to tell you what to think, make up your own mind.

Is there some aspect of the "official" version you have ever questioned?

alastair wrote: »

He has made up his mind - that's the point - it was made up based on the evidence - not blind faith in the goodness of the Bush administration or whatever. He's asking for instances of what you believe is specifically in doubt - given that that's your contention, not his.

Your speaking for Di0genes now? It couldn't have happened on a better question, lol.

No, he's asking me what I think he should have a problem with, read it right.

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay, please point out some aspect of the "official" version you think I should have a problem with?

Podman

alastair wrote: »

I posted on a previous thread that I subscribe to the truth of the 9/11 commission report as to the events of the day. If anyone has an issue with the details, I'm more than happy to provide specifics as to why it's based on actual evidence as opposed to imagination.

Can you point out the post, or is it just "somewhere on boards"?

alastair

Podman wrote: »

No, he's asking me what I think he should have a problem with, read it right.

Perhaps you might clearly explain the difference between highlighting your problems, and you highlighting your problems to the person asking for said problems?

Podman

alastair wrote: »

Perhaps you might clearly explain the difference between highlighting your problems, and you highlighting your problems to the person asking for said problems?

Just for the record, I don't entertain question fails, or arguments about them.

alastair

Podman wrote: »

Just for the record, I don't entertain question fails, or arguments about them.

That's handy. I notice you are equally handy at ignoring the inconvenient answers to misinformed questions too. You're quite the package.

alastair

Podman wrote: »

Can you point out the post, or is it just "somewhere on boards"?

Try here.

Di0genes

Podman wrote: »

You don't need me to tell you what to think, make up your own mind.

Is there some aspect of the "official" version you have ever questioned?

So that'd be a no then. And you wonder you get so much derision.

That's exactly what certain people are saying.

So when you said that, you are completely unable to name one of those certain people.

Show me any thread where a CTer asks a question of the official story, or proposes a new theory, and doesn't have someone jump down their throat about it?

Show me anything on this specific thread that hasn't already been discussed already on this forum.

Infact I bet 50euro to the Santa Strike force that you cannot find a single point raised on this thread that hasn't already been trashed out on a previous thread on this forum.

So yes posters occasionally get annoyed when someone comes up and says 'Did you know that some of the hijackers are still alive" or "The FBI don't want Bin Laden for 9/11" and think they're bringing something we hadn't heard and discussed before.

Podman

alastair wrote: »

That's handy. I notice you are equally handy at ignoring the inconvenient answers to misinformed questions too. You're quite the package.

alastair wrote: »

That's a very loose take on answering questions tbh. I'd put it more in the 'making **** up' bracket.

I'll answer those questions in my own time, I'm not here just to run around after you.

Podman

Di0genes wrote: »

Certain people here are saying "the US government say they didn't carry out 911, and that's good enough for me?" Here? On this forum?

Usernames and Quotes please.

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - kinda akward to explain how you believe a plane isn't there, and yet... it is. It's as if you buy into any claim that's made without any attempt to consistency of logic. For the sake of clarity maybe eveyone should reveal precisely what they believe - I'll go first - the truth of what happened on 9/11 is as presented in the 9/11 Commission report.

There, exactly what you wanted.

Di0genes wrote: »

So when you said that, you are completely unable to name one of those certain people.

(premature)


I would like to know though, if anyone has the balls to start a thread with the same attitude, and defend their beliefs with the same vigor as they attack others.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The point of the Deep Throat evidence was not the veracity of the informer - it was the veracity of the evidence he pointed them towards.
The Washington Post took two years to piece together the information and draw logical connections between the players and events .

So if what Deepthroat, W&B and all the others were saying was so 'veracious', why do you think it took so long to topple Nixon and the rest of them? Why did it take so long for the tide of public opinion to turn?
Did W&B just turn in their copy on day one and sit back and watch the dominos fall?
Or would the two sentences above be you just trying to have your cake and eat it?
Again, read the point that was being made, stop answering the issues you want to answer, does your argument no favours.

alastair

Podman wrote: »

Easy, Here. And you can keep your Santa Strike Force, I'll have the 50 euro though.

Hmm, by my count Barry Jennings has come up in this forum about a dozen times prior to this thread. Case in point.

Oh, and the secret service man in your final video was pretty well prepared given that he was in his own work building with whatever gear the secret service require to have in stock for a city the size of New York. He made another appearance in tonights broadcast of 9/11 Attacks - 102 minutes that changed the world, along with more comprehensive footage of the wtc 7 lobby, sans any bodies on the floor.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So if what Deepthroat, W&B and all the others were saying was so 'veracious', why do you think it took so long to topple Nixon and the rest of them? Why did it take so long for the tide of public opinion to turn?
Did W&B just turn in their copy on day one and sit back and watch the dominos fall?
Or would the two sentences above be you just trying to have your cake and eat it?
Again, read the point that was being made, stop answering the issues you want to answer, does your argument no favours.

I'll just have to repeat what I already stated (given that you clearly haven't taken it in again):

The point of the Deep Throat evidence was not the veracity of the informer - it was the veracity of the evidence he pointed them towards. It's that absent veracity if evidence that distinguishes their approach to the Truthers. The Washington Post took two years to piece together the information and draw logical connections between the players and events - unlike the truthers. The issue isn't about trusting in government, or stopping digging - it's in filter

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'll just have to repeat what I already stated (given that you clearly haven't taken it in again):

Did you have trouble with simple maths at school Alastair?
You evidently can't see the inherent contradiction in your answer in terms of what I was asking you to consider. Oh well.
By your own logic you would be a member of this http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Once upon a time 99.99% of people believed the earth was flat and they had evidence to prove it, i.e. What they could plainly see with their own eyes, then along came somebody with an incontrovertible fact that changed everything.....but sure that could never happen again, could it?

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did you have trouble with simple maths at school Alastair?
You evidently can't see the inherent contradiction in your answer in terms of what I was asking you to consider. Oh well.
By your own logic you would be a member of this http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Once upon a time 99.99% of people believed the earth was flat and they had evidence to prove it, i.e. What they could plainly see with their own eyes, then along came somebody with an incontrovertible fact that changed everything.....but sure that could never happen again, could it?

Actually and once again, embarrassingly for you, the myth of flat earth is exactly that. A myth. It was understood by the 3rd century BC that the Earth was a sphere.

Or as the historian Jeffrey Robinson put it;

"with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat"

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html

I'd really stop digging now, both your examples have proven to be completely erroneous.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes: 'Once Upon A Time' does not preclude the first three centuries.

And guh once upon a time we didn't know you could bang rocks together to make fire.

You're getting more and more spurious with each post. Yes at times we have discovered new facts that change our world view. But these "facts" presented in this thread are neither "new" or indeed "facts". So until someone comes out with credible evidence that "9/11 was an inside job"

Don't be deliberately dense to try to avoid the issue, the analogy I am making is clear, discuss or sit quietly at the back of the class please, nobody likes a smart alec.

The analogy is as clear as mud. I don't see how Aristotelian history is in any way related to proving that the US government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

Di0genes

Podman wrote: »

This quote is from the link I gave, Tell me where is this specific secret service man discussed anywhere else?

Sure if you can explain why the presence of a Secret Service agent at the site of terrorist attack next door to his office is part of the conspiracy sure.

Again, there goes alastair, making **** up to suit you.
Just say whatever you like, people know you guys do that anyway.

Careful you've dropped a few of those straws you're clutching at.

And you should know, that a post that mentions Barry Jennings does not automatically address all the points made in this thread which is about Barry Jennings.

How is the Secret Service agent related to Barry Jennings?

Toys for sick children indeed... Pints for cronies more like.

You're claiming that the Santa Strike force is con?

Happyman42

Di0genes wrote: »

So you don't have any way of proving 911 was an inside job?

No, I don't and never claimed to have, but as you now agree, 'it is possible'. Class dismissed.

Di0genes

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I don't and never claimed to have, but as you now agree, 'it is possible'. Class dismissed.

Did I ever deny it was possible? Has anyone on this forum? It's possible the towers were knocked over by giant invisible unicorns. Or by a team of highly trained ninja monkeys. It's just very unlikely.

I will entertain people with theories substantiated by facts. Something lacking for 9/11 conspiraloons.

Happyman42

Di0genes wrote: »

Do you have anything to add to the debate aside from tenuous analogies and feeble attempts at sarcasm?

For somebody throwing out plenty of ridicule and abuse you are awful sensitive go tobann.


Seriously though..... Fabulous gains were made by vested interests (oil business, arms industry etc) as a direct result of what happened that day. It has always been in America's interests to keep it's relationship with the middle east unstable, the last thing they want is it populated with strong nations. Because of the above I will be suspicious of the 'official' 9-11 version until my dying day. As I don't have the resources to investigate myself I have to rely on the loons and the more serious questioners to do the digging.
Ben Dunne being caught snorting coke in a hotel in Florida upset the applecart here in ways nobody foresaw and who knows what might happen down the road. There are numerous examples of things like this happening. Ten years is but a blip.
You cannot seriously contend that a government and corporate world that have been guilty of exploititive and criminal behaviour in the past are above suspicsion. that's just head in the sand idiocy. Even if the conspiracy was only -the selective ignoring of intelligence- it is a conspiracy nonetheless.
Corruption in the highest office of the land has no scale in my opinion, given the trust we invest in elected representitaves.
So I exit this thread as I came in: keep digging.

meglome

Happyman42 wrote: »

Seriously though..... Fabulous gains were made by vested interests (oil business, arms industry etc) as a direct result of what happened that day.

Opportunism isn't a crime.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It has always been in America's interests to keep it's relationship with the middle east unstable, the last thing they want is it populated with strong nations.

An uncertain middle east pushes up oil prices which is the last thing America would want.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because of the above I will be suspicious of the 'official' 9-11 version until my dying day. As I don't have the resources to investigate myself I have to rely on the loons and the more serious questioners to do the digging.

No problem with being suspicious but suspicion and evidence are very different. There seems to be an automatic distrust of the US government but I don't see them being any more or less likely to lie to me than anyone else.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ben Dunne being caught snorting coke in a hotel in Florida upset the applecart here in ways nobody foresaw and who knows what might happen down the road. There are numerous examples of things like this happening.

How did it upset the applecart exactly?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ten years is but a blip.

Ten years and many thousands of people supposedly involved and not one speaks out. They all sit back and except mass murder of their own people.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You cannot seriously contend that a government and corporate world that have been guilty of exploititive and criminal behaviour in the past are above suspicsion. that's just head in the sand idiocy. Even if the conspiracy was only -the selective ignoring of intelligence- it is a conspiracy nonetheless.
Corruption in the highest office of the land has no scale in my opinion, given the trust we invest in elected representitaves.

Governments are made up of individuals. Individuals with ordinary lives, friends and family. So while some of these individuals will cover up certain things it's incredibly unlikely large numbers of them will cover up mass murder of their own citizens. So unlikely IMHO that it didn't happen.

alastair

Di0genes wrote: »

Sure if you can explain why the presence of a Secret Service agent at the site of terrorist attack next door to his office is part of the conspiracy sure.

Podman's post is gone, but I'm assuming he didn't like the fact that the Secret Service had their offices in that building (not even next door - the guy was in the lobby of his own building)?

The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

(floors 9 and 10 - 85 thousand square feet)

Di0genes

alastair wrote: »

Podman's post is gone, but I'm assuming he didn't like the fact that the Secret Service had their offices in that building

Alternatively he discovered that the proposed bet went to charity, and he got annoyed.

For Nullaero eta all, I'd like to let you know I'll make a Santa Strike force donation in Podman's name to ensure the charity gets the cash it deserves.

(not even next door - the guy was in the lobby of his own building)?

Well exactly. For ****s sake the secret service team that travel with the president always carry.

A) a surface to air rocket.

several litres of the presidents blood.

AND travel with him accepting the fact that part of the job involves throwing yourself in the line of a bullet.

And you're amazed that an office, that includes the job of securing the national leader of a major super power, has breathing apparatuses at hand?

muincav

quote from Di0genes--You're getting more and more spurious with each post. Yes at times we have discovered new facts that change our world view. But these "facts" presented in this thread are neither "new" or indeed "facts". So until someone comes out with credible evidence that "9/11 was an inside job"



Why? Has someone got "credible" evidence it wasnt? I mean real evidence, not that crap that the US media feed us.....
Diogenes--why are you even on here?

meglome

muincav wrote: »

Why? Has someone got "credible" evidence it wasnt? I mean real evidence, not that crap that the US media feed us.....
Diogenes--why are you even on here?

See we're not making any claims. We're saying that given the evidence the official version makes sense. What do you have an issue with?

Di0genes

muincav wrote: »

quote from Di0genes--You're getting more and more spurious with each post. Yes at times we have discovered new facts that change our world view. But these "facts" presented in this thread are neither "new" or indeed "facts". So until someone comes out with credible evidence that "9/11 was an inside job" Why? Has someone got "credible" evidence it wasnt? I mean real evidence, not that crap that the US media feed us.....

Yeah. Credible evidence it wasn't The onus is on the person making the claim. You can claim that Jesus rode to the moon on a elephant, that doesn't mean I have to prove that he didn't.

And as you've seen on this and other threads my evidence doesn't all come from tv.

Diogenes--why are you even on here?

Honestly? Well we had a team of 14 agents covering this site 24/7. Then for some reason our NWO handlers decided Demonspawn needed 12 on him at all time. It's a bitch but the overtime helps.

Brown Bomber

This makes for interesting viewing.

Podman

alastair wrote: »

Podman's post is gone, but I'm assuming he didn't like the fact that the Secret Service had their offices in that building (not even next door - the guy was in the lobby of his own building)?

You can assume what you like but it wasn't me who deleted it. Maybe Di0genes saw he was losing the bet and ran off telling tales?

After all, he did claim to be taking the money from charity instead of his own pocket.

Di0genes wrote: »

And you're amazed that an office, that includes the job of securing the national leader of a major super power, has breathing apparatuses at hand?

Do you guys even know what your arguing about?

I'm not questioning why he had a bag on his head.
I'm not questioning whether he worked there.
I'm not asking what connection he had to Jennings.

The bet depends on this unanswered question from four days ago...
Tell me where this specific secret service agent is discussed anywhere else?

alastair

Podman wrote: »

Do you guys even know what your arguing about?

I'm not questioning why he had a bag on his head.
I'm not questioning whether he worked there.
I'm not asking what connection he had to Jennings.

The bet depends on this unanswered question from four days ago...
Tell me where this specific secret service agent is discussed anywhere else?

I think I've encountered a new degree of sad.

But if that's the way you want to play it...

So - when do you pay up?