Israeli involvement in 9/11 and spying on the U.S.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:Speaking of Sirhan, the lone assassin of RFK , he had time to reload his 8 round revolver to fire additional rounds into the ceiling , even though it didn't matter that 300lb Rosey Grier and others were all over him. Ken,Maybe it was part of that CIA team that handed him more bullets. You know. They didn't participate in it. They just let it happen. On a more serious note, I strongly suspect Eugene Thane Ceasar who was standing behind RFK.

[kenmurray]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:kenmurray wrote:Speaking of Sirhan, the lone assassin of RFK , he had time to reload his 8 round revolver to fire additional rounds into the ceiling , even though it didn't matter that 300lb Rosey Grier and others were all over him. Ken,Maybe it was part of that CIA team that handed him more bullets. You know. They didn't participate in it. They just let it happen. On a more serious note, I strongly suspect Eugene Thane Ceasar who was standing behind RFK.Pasquale, I strongly suspect that you are correct on Cesar.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:kenmurray wrote:Speaking of Sirhan, the lone assassin of RFK , he had time to reload his 8 round revolver to fire additional rounds into the ceiling , even though it didn't matter that 300lb Rosey Grier and others were all over him. Ken,Maybe it was part of that CIA team that handed him more bullets. You know. They didn't participate in it. They just let it happen. On a more serious note, I strongly suspect Eugene Thane Ceasar who was standing behind RFK.Pasquale, I strongly suspect that you are correct on Cesar. LOL Also, I find it interesting that they chose a "Palestinian" (Sirhan) to take the blame. Very interesting indeed. Who in the middle east doesn't get along with Palestinians?

[Robert Wagner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:Your source is not even close. Opensecrets.org is the definitive source for lobbying information. Pro-Israel lobbies are at:http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/i ... nd=Q05Look here to see it ranks #24 among interest "industries."http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.phpClick Heavy Hitters to see it dwarfed by individual contributors such as AT&T spending $45M. Opensecrets.org is the definitive source for YOU. So, be happy with it. It's interesting how you're trying to derail the discussion about the facts and evidence regarding Israeli involvement in 9 /11. I'm not derailing the discussion, I'm showing your facts are incorrect. When you can't defend with better facts, you turn it into a question of authority. Ok, I'll respond in kind. Your assertion Pro-Israel AIPAC is the second largest lobby in Washington came from Janet McMahon of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. A glance at washington-report.org shows it is a single issue organization that supports the Arab side in its conflict with Israel. It runs a book store in DC that sells "Palestinian pottery, embroidery, olive oil, olive oil soap and other solidarity items." Their bio of Janet McMahon reads, "Janet McMahon earned her B.A. in English at Reed College in Portland, OR in 1970, and subsequently studied economics and Arabic on a part-time basis at Portland State University. She attended the American University in Cairo in 1987 and 1988, receiving a graduate diploma in Middle East Studies, with an emphasis in economics.After completing her studies at AUC, McMahon joined the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 1989. In addition to her editorial duties, she has interviewed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, former Sen. James Abourezk, Dr. Hala Maksoud and Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, among others. An expert on the Israel lobby and pro-Israel political action committees (PACs), she has written special reports on Israel and Palestine .." http://www.washington-report.org/about-wrmea.htmlThe author's obvious bias does not prove she was wrong, but it should raise suspicion. My source is described, "Founded in 1983, the nonprofit [Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)] aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government. OpenSecrets.org, first launched in 1996, is the online incarnation of the Open Secrets money-in-politics project the center launched in the 1980s, which was contained in large, printed books. CRP’s website OpenSecrets.org has won four Webby Awards (2001, 2002, 2006, 2007) for being the best politics site online. In 2010. OpenSecrets.org was named a Webby Official Honoree." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opensecrets "With nearly 10,000 entries received from all 50 states and over 60 countries, this is an outstanding accomplishment for you and your team," said David-Michel Davies, executive director of the Webby Awards and the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences. .. This year, the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences also recognized several other politically oriented websites that rely on data from the Center for Responsive Politics in their reporting. The Academy's nominees for the best politics website this year are: BBC Democracy Live, CNN Politics, FactCheck.org, PoliticsDaily and Truthdig." http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04 ... tmlReaders will judge which source is more believable.Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:They found a tiny market segment that's government subsidized and wrote their copy to give the impression a $3B publicly owned company is part of a government cabal. They know their audience isn't sophisticated enough to read an annual financial statement. Why don't you explain it to us? What are you talking about? Have you been drinking? Gladly. There are four ways government could subsidize a public company like AMDOCS:.. Buy stock during an IPO, in which case government would show on the stockholder list... Lend them money, in which case government would show on the creditor list... Give them assets (equipment). The other side of the entry would be Other Income... Overpay as a customer. The government division would show exorbitant gross profit. I'm talking about your alleged facts being discrepant with reality, in other words lies.I was drinking black tea when I wrote it. Notice a pattern here. You say the sky is green; I say the sky is blue and here's my substantiation. Then I stop. I don't go on to question your motives, sobriety, patriotism, sanity nor intelligence. With enough repetition, I hope you'll learn to check facts before pasting lies from your favorite websites. Also that arguments stand or fall on the basis of merit. They are not strengthened by the addition of personal attacks. On the contrary, ad homina are a sign of weakness. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:The way the evidence looks to me is that those buildings needed to be retrofitted because of the asbestos in them. Estimates on the cost that I've heard to retrofit those twin towers was about 1 billion. Yet another lie.“U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell in early February threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties.The suit sought recovery of the Port Authority's huge expenses of removing asbestos from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade Center complex-which represented more than $200 million of the abatement costs-to bridge and tunnel toll booths.” http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/d ... n26primary source: http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d ... dfPasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Who is the bigot? For the rest of you, I want you to take a good look at how this man is talking about an ethnic group, Italians in general. You'd never say that in person, and you know it. You also just CONTRADICTED yourself. You said in an earlier post in this topic that I'm acting or talking like bigot because I'm presenting and talking about evidence that Israeli's and Zionists were behind 9/11. Then you, in all your glory, go and insult Italians. Who is the racist? You are. Who is the bigot? You are. Badda bing! LOL As we used to say in the Marine Corps, F*** 'em if they can't take a joke.Q. Who shot Mussolini?A. 100 Italian sharpshooters. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:It was a sigint ship crammed full of communication equipment. Naval technology has improved since Pirates of the Caribbean. What are you talking about? All I said was that the Israeli's KNEW they were attacking an American ship. It's been proven already. There is no mistaking the intent of the Israelis when they tried to kill everyone aboard the USS Liberty.You said they thought no one would know who did it if they killed everyone. One pilot said he reported the ship wasn't flying a flag. Another said he saw Latin letters, so reported it was a Russian ship. Hello. Russian ships usually don't have lettering. When they do, it's Cyrillic. Command said one shift knew it was American, but the information got lost during shift change. In the end, Israel paid for the ship, deaths and injuries. Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:So, what I can see from your responses is that the only piece of evidence that you can refute pertains to AMDOCS. All the other evidence presented you haven't refuted at all. You just say it's not relevant or whatever.Try again, and this time, try being nice. I refuted AIPAC, WTC asbestos and Liberty coverup.

[bob franklin]

I'd like to interject here & address the good samaritan argument. If you have knowledge of an imminent crime, that foreknowledge requires BY LAW that you report it, else become an accessory before the fact, IE a conspirator.There are no special dispenations for government agencies. This is especially true in capital crimes.

[Robert Wagner]

bob franklin wrote:I'd like to interject here & address the good samaritan argument. If you have knowledge of an imminent crime, that foreknowledge requires BY LAW that you report it, else become an accessory before the fact, IE a conspirator.There are no special dispenations for government agencies. This is especially true in capital crimes.Please cite the federal law.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Opensecrets.org is the definitive source for YOU. So, be happy with it. It's interesting how you're trying to derail the discussion about the facts and evidence regarding Israeli involvement in 9 /11. I'm not derailing the discussion, I'm showing your facts are incorrect. When you can't defend with better facts, you turn it into a question of authority. Ok, I'll respond in kind. Your assertion Pro-Israel AIPAC is the second largest lobby in Washington came from Janet McMahon of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. A glance at washington-report.org shows it is a single issue organization that supports the Arab side in its conflict with Israel. It runs a book store in DC that sells "Palestinian pottery, embroidery, olive oil, olive oil soap and other solidarity items." Their bio of Janet McMahon reads, "Janet McMahon earned her B.A. in English at Reed College in Portland, OR in 1970, and subsequently studied economics and Arabic on a part-time basis at Portland State University. She attended the American University in Cairo in 1987 and 1988, receiving a graduate diploma in Middle East Studies, with an emphasis in economics.After completing her studies at AUC, McMahon joined the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 1989. In addition to her editorial duties, she has interviewed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, former Sen. James Abourezk, Dr. Hala Maksoud and Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, among others. An expert on the Israel lobby and pro-Israel political action committees (PACs), she has written special reports on Israel and Palestine .." http://www.washington-report.org/about-wrmea.htmlThe author's obvious bias does not prove she was wrong, but it should raise suspicion. So, you're not saying that the author is wrong about AIPAC, but you ARE saying that her obvious bias should raise a question? What obvious bias? Are you talking about you? ;D Robert Wagner wrote:Readers will judge which source is more believable.I know they are and will continue to. They can read all of my previous posts to see what kind of person I am, and they can read all of yours too to see who YOU are. I'm not worried at all. Robert Wagner wrote:Gladly. There are four ways government could subsidize a public company like AMDOCS:.. Buy stock during an IPO, in which case government would show on the stockholder list... Lend them money, in which case government would show on the creditor list... Give them assets (equipment). The other side of the entry would be Other Income... Overpay as a customer. The government division would show exorbitant gross profit. I'm talking about your alleged facts being discrepant with reality, in other words lies.I was drinking black tea when I wrote it. I'm still trying to find the source for the AMDOCS information as reported by Fox News. I'm still sticking by it in the meantime. Robert Wagner wrote:Notice a pattern here. You say the sky is green; I say the sky is blue and here's my substantiation. Then I stop. I don't go on to question your motives, sobriety, patriotism, sanity nor intelligence. With enough repetition, I hope you'll learn to check facts before pasting lies from your favorite websites. Also that arguments stand or fall on the basis of merit. They are not strengthened by the addition of personal attacks. On the contrary, ad homina are a sign of weakness. You haven't substantiated anything. The pattern I was referring to is that you claim to have been in so many key places that you're beginning to sound like Forrest Gump. You claim that you were at the Ambassador Hotel on the night RFK was killed. You claim that you worked for Amdocs. You also said something about having been involved in a precursor to, or "test run" for, Operation Northwoods. Now you're claiming to be a former U.S. Marine. Robert Wagner wrote:I mentioned a test run for Northwoods I worked on, a year before the proposal was offered.The pattern you're establishing for yourself is very obvious here. Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:The way the evidence looks to me is that those buildings needed to be retrofitted because of the asbestos in them. Estimates on the cost that I've heard to retrofit those twin towers was about 1 billion. Yet another lie.“U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell in early February threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties.The suit sought recovery of the Port Authority's huge expenses of removing asbestos from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade Center complex-which represented more than $200 million of the abatement costs-to bridge and tunnel toll booths.” http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/d ... n26primary source: http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d ... .pdfYou're funny. It's not "yet another lie" on my part because I actually did hear that amount of money as an estimate on the cost of retrofitting the WTC buildings because of the asbestos in them. I think you're trying too hard. Is that what you're about? All dust and no movement? First of all, WHERE does your information show the cost of retrofitting those WTC buildings because of the asbestos? I’m not seeing it.What I DID find in one of your links was the information below. This is what I got from one of your own links you just posted. It actually helps to prove my point. “The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the real issue. There was also another vital issue – asbestos! The towers had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings – after all, what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn’t demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive asbestos removal seemed to be the only option.”So, in what appears to be a ruse or deceptive argument technique on your part, you're splitting hairs and missing the point or trying to get others to miss the point. The quote above is from one of YOUR links (http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/d ... htm#_ftn26), so my point still stands. Those buildings were in need of retrofitting, and they were losing money. According to YOUR link, "The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them." There were three choices that the Port Authority had: Sell or lease them, pay for EXPENSIVE ASBESTOS REMOVAL or DEMOLISH THEM! LMAO If you want to split hairs on what they mean by "expensive," that's on you. I'll stick by my information because my point is valid. Larry Silverstein made sure to insure them just weeks prior to the attack, and he was paid billions in insurance money for them. Quite a handsome return on his investment, wouldn't you say? Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Who is the bigot? For the rest of you, I want you to take a good look at how this man is talking about an ethnic group, Italians in general. You'd never say that in person, and you know it. You also just CONTRADICTED yourself. You said in an earlier post in this topic that I'm acting or talking like bigot because I'm presenting and talking about evidence that Israeli's and Zionists were behind 9/11. Then you, in all your glory, go and insult Italians. Who is the racist? You are. Who is the bigot? You are. Badda bing! LOL As we used to say in the Marine Corps, F*** 'em if they can't take a joke.Q. Who shot Mussolini?A. 100 Italian sharpshooters. 100 Italian sharpshooters, eh? Well, nothing exceeds like excess. You sound like you have a real issue with Italians. We aim to please.The joke is on you. You're the one who called me a bigot, didn't you? You're just contradicting yourself. You can call me whatever names you like and make as many Italian jokes as you want. You're only making yourself look inconsistent. You said you had a problem with me because of a bigotry issue, remember? Weren't you the one who said that American's deserve what they get? You said previously:Robert Wagner wrote:The rest of the world thinks Americans are fools who don't deserve the share of money we have. They're right. That's quite a statement coming from a supposed former Marine. You sound like you look down on the people around you. It only makes you look arrogant.Robert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Robert Wagner wrote:It was a sigint ship crammed full of communication equipment. Naval technology has improved since Pirates of the Caribbean. What are you talking about? All I said was that the Israeli's KNEW they were attacking an American ship. It's been proven already. There is no mistaking the intent of the Israelis when they tried to kill everyone aboard the USS Liberty.You said they thought no one would know who did it if they killed everyone. One pilot said he reported the ship wasn't flying a flag. Another said he saw Latin letters, so reported it was a Russian ship. Hello. Russian ships usually don't have lettering. When they do, it's Cyrillic. Command said one shift knew it was American, but the information got lost during shift change. In the end, Israel paid for the ship, deaths and injuries. Sorry, but that's not the version of the story that I heard. My version is that the ship's radios were jammed (which would have taken a little planning) and that the crew had to make a makeshift radio antenna just to signal for help. The version of events was also that they hoisted a second even larger American flag and that the Israelis still wouldn't stop the attack. There is no question that the Israelis knew it was an American ship. Here is video of one of the survivors of the USS Liberty attack talking about it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZJEhDfonoRobert Wagner wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:So, what I can see from your responses is that the only piece of evidence that you can refute pertains to AMDOCS. All the other evidence presented you haven't refuted at all. You just say it's not relevant or whatever.Try again, and this time, try being nice. I refuted AIPAC, WTC asbestos and Liberty coverup.You haven't refuted anything. I'm sticking by my source and information regarding AIPAC, which you yourself said is not incorrect but that the source is biased. The asbestos issue still stands even more because of the link that YOU provided, and the USS Liberty information still stands. You're running out of feet to shoot.

[kenmurray]

Power Downs, Evacuations, Strange Events In Weeks Before 9/11:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqM

[kenmurray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujoc1DYj ... re=related

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:Power Downs, Evacuations, Strange Events In Weeks Before 9/11:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqMExactly.The "power down" in the WTC towers was supposedly some renovations that were being done on either the telephone or internet cables in the buildings. There were reports of workmen in the buildings with spools of cables.Coincidentally, it's my understanding that the section of the Pentagon that was hit was also under renovation as well.