Reply #61: Rock bottom

[HamdenRice]

First of all, I have to say, of all the arguments I've heard from official conspiracy theory apologists, yours are absolutely the least convincing, the worst, most illogical and transparently troll-like. Your arguments make me nostaligic about the days when OCTers like Lared and others actually debated the available facts. As far as I can tell, looking over your posts, your only argument is conclusive, circular ad hominem, and goes something like this: "People who argue for 9/11 truth are conspiracy theorists; conspiracy theoriests are crazy; therefore the 9/11 truth movement are crazy." That's about all you offer.

You are also conflating lots of different alternative theories together, which is a common rhetorical tactic of vehement defenders of the official story. There may be a researcher like Paul Thompson, who has meticulously constructed a time line based mainstream media sources that conclusively shows that the official story is wrong; there may be a researcher like Daniel Hopsicker who has demonstrated through first person interviews that the hijackers were nothing like the pious Muslims the official story portrayed them to be and had connections to cocain traffickers; but because you read somewhere that someone believes no planes flew into the Pentagon, then everyone believes that. And therefore you can dismiss all 9/11 reasearch. That's basically your argument.

You also assume that if "the government" was involved in 9/11, then it is pure evil and everyone must leave the country. How utterly bizarre. The truth movement suggests that rogoue elements within the intelligence, defense and/or private intelligence networks have been involved. That doesn't mean that your local post office supervisor is pure evil.

Why would the murder of 3,000 people make the entire government pure evil? After all, we saw the Bush administration murder, through neglect, through failure to deliver food, water, medicine or to evacuate people, several thousand people in New Orleans and it was on national television, day after day. Why haven't you fled to Canada? We've seen the Bush administration cause a war that has killed 600,000 Iraqi civilians and 2,700 soldiers and marines for no good strategic reason. Why haven't you fled to Mexico?

So here's a challenge to you. This is what I think is the most convincing evidence of government complicity, based on mainstream media sources.

The 9/11 Commission claims that the only state sponsor of the hijackers was Afghanistan's Taliban government. But mainstream media sources reported in 2001 that the hijackers received funding from Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence, it's version of the CIA. The head of the ISI was Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad. It has been well documented that he ordered $100,000 be sent to Mohammed Atta (although there are differing accounts of exactly when the money was sent).

Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, the financier of the 9/11 attacks, flew to Washington, DC, on September 4, 2001, and had meetings with top officials of the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department. On the morning of September 11, 2001, as the planes flew into the towers, Gen. Ahmad, the financier of the hijackers, was meeting with Porter Goss, a former CIA officer, and at the time a Republican representative and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and soon to be named head of the CIA. Goss later told the press that he and Ahmad were discussing terrorism generated in Afghanistan.

So tell me how you can reconcile the official story with the fact of the financier of the hijackings meeting with leading defense and intelligence officials of the Bush administration?

Why is it that I don't expect an answer from you?