Important officials who support a new investigation into 9/11

[radical_logic]

1. Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned December 2003.
2. Louis Freeh – Director of FBI, 1993-2001
3. General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret)
4. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.
5. Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA.
6. Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy, 1985-1992. Also served as Former Prime Minister, Undersecretary for Defense, and President of the Italian Senate.
7. Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.
8. Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during Reagan Administration.
9. Rep. Curt Weldon – Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman. Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman.
10. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Military Intelligence Officer, Defense Intelligence Agency.

...and many more.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Question: does the fact that many prominent officials question the official story suggest that something could be seriously wrong with it?

Or are they all lunies and crackpots?

[Pardalis]

Then why is it so hard to get off the ground?

[radical_logic]

Then why is it so hard to get off the ground?

Not sure. Question: Does the fact that so many prominent officials question the official story not suggest anything to you?

[Pardalis]

Not sure. Question: Does the fact that so many prominent officials question the official story not suggest anything to you?

Prominent? Most of them are retired.

[radical_logic]

Then why is it so hard to get off the ground?

Question: Would you agree that, because so many prominent officials question the official 9/11 story, then those who doubt it are not necessarily "fringe," "nutty," "irrational," or "stupid?"

[Pardalis]

"Wrong" is the word.

[radical_logic]

Prominent? Most of them are retired.

oh Come on. Bill Clinton is "retired" but he's still considered a prominent official.

[radical_logic]

Here are some more important people who question the official story:

1. Joel S. Hirschhorn, MS (Metallurgical Engineering), PhD (Materials Engineering) – Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990. Testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues.

2. Robert M. Korol, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University. Elected Fellow of the Engineering Institute of Canada for exceptional contributions to engineering in Canada. Fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Well known for research on steel structures; the plastic theory of metal structures, inelastic buckling, limit analysis, environmental assessment and life cycle analysis methodologies. Hamilton-Wentworth's 1998 "Engineer of the Year."

3. David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Visiting professorships at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Fellow of the American Physical Society. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works. Frequently cited by other researchers.

4. Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.

5. Bruce R. Henry, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Mathematics and Computer Science, Worcester State College. Former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles, General Electric Co.

6. William Rice, PE – Former Professor of Engineering at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses. Registered Professional Civil Engineer who worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.

7. Jack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University. Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004). Member, National Academy of Engineering. International advisor on water resources, development and agricultural water use. Awarded State of Utah Governor's Medal for Science and Technology (1988).

http://wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911

[Quad4_72]

Question: does the fact that many prominent officials question the official story suggest that something could be seriously wrong with it?

Or are they all lunies and crackpots?

If they believe that the government orchestrated the attacks on 9/11, then YES, they are indeed loonies. Why you ask? Because there is OVERWHELMING evidence that Al Queda planned and carried out the attacks. If any one of them believes in a controlled demolition theory then there credibility can immediately be discounted.

If so many of them are prominent, then why don't they get this new investigation going? I mean come on, you have had 7 years to do it.

[X]

So?

I mean, seriously, how is this anything other than argumentum ad verecundiam mixed with argumentum ad populam?


It "suggests" nothing.

[radical_logic]

;4032382']So?

I mean, seriously, how is this anything other than argumentum ad verecundiam mixed with argumentum ad populam?


It "suggests" nothing.


It suggests that at least some of the criticisms of the official story may be worth looking into.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122619&page=13

Please address post 482.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89122&page=2

Please address post 42, second page.

[WildCat]

Is radical_logic a visitor from 2004?

[RedIbis]

;4032382']So?

I mean, seriously, how is this anything other than argumentum ad verecundiam mixed with argumentum ad populam?


It "suggests" nothing.

Your statement is dead on whether we're talking about twoofies or official explanations.

[parky76]

1. Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned December 2003.
2. Louis Freeh – Director of FBI, 1993-2001
3. General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret)
4. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.
5. Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA.
6. Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy, 1985-1992. Also served as Former Prime Minister, Undersecretary for Defense, and President of the Italian Senate.
7. Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.
8. Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during Reagan Administration.
9. Rep. Curt Weldon – Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman. Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman.
10. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Military Intelligence Officer, Defense Intelligence Agency.

...and many more.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Question: does the fact that many prominent officials question the official story suggest that something could be seriously wrong with it?

Or are they all lunies and crackpots?

im sure NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD.

So, honestly, give us a break.

[A W Smith]

its Logical fallacy day!

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

[radical_logic]

im sure NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD.

So, honestly, give us a break.


How do you know? Have you checked out what they said?

[Jonnyclueless]

Gotta love it. Billions of people who don't buy into these 9/11 conspiracy cult nonsense, but because Jr here can list maybe 10 hardly-considerable "officials" it somehow makes it important.

Wow, we're impressed by the .000000001% of the worlds "officials" (most of whom are long out of the business) wanting a new investigation. Clealy that shoudl trump the 99.99999999% who don't.

Would you like us to start a list of officials who DON'T want a new investigation? This over looking the fact that no one is stopping you kids from investigating. The grown ups did their investigation, and you want your own, so go do your own and stop whining to the grown ups. You don't trust the government, so stop asking them for help.

[Jonnyclueless]

How do you know? Have you checked out what they said?

Can you show they do?

[1337m4n]

oh Come on. Bill Clinton is "retired" but he's still considered a prominent official.

Correction: He is still considered "prominent". He is no longer an "official" of any kind.

The people you have listed have no more relevance than Rosie O'Donnel or Charlie Sheen or the hypothetical used car salesman I started a thread about several months ago.

[1337m4n]

It suggests that at least some of the criticisms of the official story may be worth looking into.


But, they HAVE been "looked into". What the heck do you think JREF forum has been doing all this time. WE of JREF have "looked into" these claims, and found them to be patently idiotic. End of story.

If Stephen Hawking said that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition, in my view, that wouldn't cause the controlled demolition theory to gain credibility--it would just cause Stephen Hawking to lose credibility.

[jaydeehess]

How do you know? Have you checked out what they said?

Why don't you break it down for us. After all its your insinuation that all of these people support 911 CT.

If one questions why the PANYNJ had special building and fire codes separate from those of NYC does that support the TM?

[jaydeehess]

Correction: He is still considered "prominent". He is no longer an "official" of any kind.

The people you have listed have no more relevance than Rosie O'Donnel or Charlie Sheen or the hypothetical used car salesman I started a thread about several months ago.

Not to mention that Bill Clinton is still heavily involved in the political machinations of the USA. How involved in their old career subjects are the people on RL's list?

[radical_logic]

Can you show they do?

That's not my burden. Parky claimed:

"im sure NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD."

What is the basis of this confidence? Did he ACTUALLY check why the people I listed question the official story of 9/11? Or did he simply pull those assertions out of his gaping a-hole?

[Jonnyclueless]

But the burden IS on you. Because you are trying to imply that their disagreements and motives and beliefs are the same as yours, when they are not. This is part of your continuing dishonesty. They are not making the same claims you are.

But likewise you are again being dishonest by implying that because they are not making claims that support the opposite of your beliefs that it doesn't mean they don't. Well, you won't find any scientists specifically stating they believe in gravity because it's pretty much accepted. you can bet though that if they did not, they would certainly speak out abaout it. Likewise if those people in your list felt things like Al Qeada being innocent, they would have voiced that as their reason for wanting a new investigation.

And once again, would you like a list of some of the "officials" who do NOT want an additional investigation? Will that make you happy?

[radical_logic]

But the burden IS on you.

Again, Parky claimed:

"im sure NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD."

Does he not have a burden to back up his assertions? Yes or No?


Because you are trying to imply that their disagreements and motives and beliefs are the same as yours, when they are not. This is part of your continuing dishonesty. They are not making the same claims you are.

1. I'm simply suggesting that because many prominent officials question the accepted 9/11 story, there could be something seriously wrong with the official story. I haven't stated my beliefs and motives, or made many claims at all, and therefore no inference connecting my specific views and theirs is valid. Hence there goes your charge of dishonesty.

2. As usual, you do you give evidence in support of your accusations. Indicate where I am "trying to imply that their disagreements and motives and beliefs are the same as mine," and that they are in fact "not the same."

<snip unintelligible>

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, Parky claimed:

"im sure NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD."

Does he not have a burden to back up his assertions? Yes or No?

No, because this is what is commonly accepted and those who believe otherwise would be the ones to state so. I have explained why. What you again are trying to do it imply that because they have some disagreements, that they must then therefore agree with YOUR crackpot theories. And that is untrue.



1. I'm simply suggesting that because many prominent officials question the accepted 9/11 story, there could be something seriously wrong with the official story. I haven't stated my beliefs and motives, or made many claims at all, and therefore no inference connecting my specific views and theirs is valid. Hence there goes your charge of dishonesty.

OK, then I am suggesting that since 1 billion times more people are suggesting that the 9/11 official story is correct that it more likely is. Likewise, if every single person on the planet questioned the official story, then that STILL would not make them right. Either you provide some evidence to show something isn't right, or to back up your claims, or you have nothing. Can any of these people you listen provide examples? Anyone can question anything. It doesn't make them right no matter who they are.

And again, you are about as dishonest as it comes.


2. As usual, you do you give evidence in support of your accusations. Indicate where I am "trying to imply that their disagreements and motives and beliefs are the same as mine," and that they are in fact "not the same."

<snip unintelligible>

<snip idiotic>


Your own posts are the evidence. Please don't play dumb. You think you're the first twoofer to come here and make these same identical threads? Take a number because you're lemming 123,345. If you bothered to do a search before posting, you would see that these threads of yours are completely redundant. If you bothered to do a search for research, you will see how these claims you are making have been covered to death 1000 times over in this forum. But like you, every single other lemming who made the word for word identical arguments they all thought they were the first ones to make them.

Oh wait, let me guess, you're "Just asking questions man". Right?

[radical_logic]

No, because this is what is commonly accepted

What? It's commonly accepted that, of officials I listed:

"NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD?"

Do you have a link to an article or something to support this claim?

<snip colossal retardishness>

[Jonnyclueless]

LOL! That's it kid, run away and avoid the questions.

Again, please provide the evidence that these people in your list have provided that woul warrant a new investigation.

[radical_logic]

LOL! That's it kid, run away and avoid the questions.

That's what you're doing.

Again. If it's commonly accepted that, of the officials I listed:

"NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD?"

then do you have a link to an article or something to support this claim?

Don't dodge.

[Jonnyclueless]

LOL! That's it kid, run away and avoid the questions.

Again, please provide the evidence that these people in your list have provided that woul warrant a new investigation.

Well? Are you going to keep avoiding the question?

[radical_logic]

Well? Are you going to keep avoiding the question?

Yep, until you answer the one I asked first.

If it's commonly accepted that, of the officials I listed:

"NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD?"

then do you have a link to an article or something to support this claim?

[Arus808]

can someone stop the loon from posting the same 5 statements in a on the first page of a thread?

in fact, stop the loon from posting the same thing over and over again in ALL the threads that said loon posts in


dodge repeate dogdge repeat.


RL has no morals. HE"S A TROLL peple. IGNORE HIM> please.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Straight from the Ken Ham school of creationism, this thread lists "experts" who "question" the "official story." Evolution must be wrong because AnswersinGenesis has a list of "scientists" who "doubt evolution." Why are there so many parallels between creationism and trutherism?

[UNLoVedRebel]

1. Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned December 2003.
2. Louis Freeh – Director of FBI, 1993-2001
3. General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret)
4. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.
5. Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA.
6. Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy, 1985-1992. Also served as Former Prime Minister, Undersecretary for Defense, and President of the Italian Senate.
7. Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.
8. Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during Reagan Administration.
9. Rep. Curt Weldon – Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman. Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman.
10. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Military Intelligence Officer, Defense Intelligence Agency.

...and many more.


Question: does the fact that many prominent officials question the official story suggest that something could be seriously wrong with it?

Or are they all lunies and crackpots?

McGovern's "truth" is a LIHOP version of the "truth". Schaffer's is more of a "Let It Happen Due To Incompetence" (LIHDTI). So their views only support the "OCT". Cossiga's "truth" is an anti-semitic "Mossad Black Op Truth". So don't come here and list a bunch of people with opposing views and act like it helps your case.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

* Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
(on and on and on)

There are more scientists that think life had a supernatural origin 6000 years ago than there are engineers who believe the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition hoping to get passed off as a progressive collapse from plane impact and subsequent fire.

[CptColumbo]

The call for a new investigation by these men, doesn't necessarily mean that they believe in LIHOP or MIHOP. The first two, for example, are critical of the Bush Administration and believe that the incompetence of the new President's staff lead to the attacks not being stopped and want those individuals held accountable. (Louis Freeh's Op-Ed piece http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559)

[SDC]

Isn't it true that the Keebler Elves do not accept the "official theory" of 9/11? Why isn't more attention paid to the fact that fictional cartoon characters who push cookies on the public do not accept the "official theory"?

Have you called the Jolly Green Giant? Where does he stand? So to speak.

ETA: And how about Charlie the Tuna? After all, why does the "official theory" of 9/11 only want tuna who taste good, not tuna with good taste?

[ingoa]

Paris Hilton is prominent. What does she say about 911? Inquiring minds want to know...

By the way, I do not know any person mentioned except Clinton. So how prominent are they?

[Bosozoku]

1. Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned December 2003.



Max Cleland did not resign from the 9/11 Commission because he questioned the official story. He resigned because he felt that the Bush administration was blocking the investigation so as to prevent its findings from reflecting poorly on the administration before the 2004 election.

In light of this, I think it is safe to assume that you have placed other people on your list who don't actually question the official story.

[WildCat]

its Logical fallacy day!

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
Well you have to admit it's more impressive than "unemployed kid living in mama's basement supports a new investigation".

[chillzero]

1. I'm simply suggesting that because many prominent officials question the accepted 9/11 story, there could be something seriously wrong with the official story.


What exactly are their questions, though? This is important.

You claim they question the accepted 911 story - i.e. the events of that day.

What if they actually have questions about how the administration handled the events of that day, the weeks following? Did you check this? Can you identify the specifics they raise questions about?

Because, from my perspective, they are querying how the day unfolded in terms of reaction times, how search and rescue were deployed, how the ongoing safety of people was mis-managed, and how the survivors were treated as of lesser importance than families of the dead.

None of those questions bring the 'official story' under any real scrutiny in terms of who was responsible for undertaking the attacks in the first place - just how the attacks were responded to.

[RedIbis]

What exactly are their questions, though? This is important.

You claim they question the accepted 911 story - i.e. the events of that day.

What if they actually have questions about how the administration handled the events of that day, the weeks following? Did you check this? Can you identify the specifics they raise questions about?

Because, from my perspective, they are querying how the day unfolded in terms of reaction times, how search and rescue were deployed, how the ongoing safety of people was mis-managed, and how the survivors were treated as of lesser importance than families of the dead.

None of those questions bring the 'official story' under any real scrutiny in terms of who was responsible for undertaking the attacks in the first place - just how the attacks were responded to.

You could not possibly have taken a serious look at that list and come to this conclusion.

[chillzero]

You could not possibly have taken a serious look at that list and come to this conclusion.

Well, I should have been clearer.

I dismissed those claims that have been repeatedly and soundly debunked.

Then I dismissed those that were addressed by these posts:

McGovern's "truth" is a LIHOP version of the "truth". Schaffer's is more of a "Let It Happen Due To Incompetence" (LIHDTI). So their views only support the "OCT". Cossiga's "truth" is an anti-semitic "Mossad Black Op Truth". So don't come here and list a bunch of people with opposing views and act like it helps your case.

The call for a new investigation by these men, doesn't necessarily mean that they believe in LIHOP or MIHOP. The first two, for example, are critical of the Bush Administration and believe that the incompetence of the new President's staff lead to the attacks not being stopped and want those individuals held accountable. (Louis Freeh's Op-Ed piece http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559)

leaving those who in my opinion are critical of the administration for reasons I outlined. I will admit that Bill Clinton in particular was in mind when I responded. He has been vocal in his denial that 911 was an inside job, and highly critical of how the bereaved and survivors have been treated in the aftermath.

In any case, the response required in this thread is well summed up by this:


If Stephen Hawking said that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition, in my view, that wouldn't cause the controlled demolition theory to gain credibility--it would just cause Stephen Hawking to lose credibility.

[X]

It suggests that at least some of the criticisms of the official story may be worth looking into.


No. It shows that some people have questions concerning your mythical "official story". It says nothing about what those questions are.
Thus, nothing can be infered from it.
As I said, it "suggests" nothing.
But feel free to provide quotes and statements from the individuals on your list, demonstrating what specific questions they have. That might have value (see my repsonse to Red Ibis, below).



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122619&page=13

Please address post 482.


Still looking into that. My offer to apologize for the assumed use of the confession tape during the trial still stands. My declaration of your dishonesty does, too.



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89122&page=2

Please address post 42, second page.


Umm... why?



Your statement is dead on whether we're talking about twoofies or official explanations.


Correct.
Expert opinions live and die on their own merits. Some people can prove their assertions, other can not. In fact, assertions do not even have to be from experts. Any statement can that be proved or falsified can be taken into account. It needn't come from authority.

To date, the truth movement has not managed to prove any of their cliams of conspiracy or explosives or inside job or no-planes or spacebeams or keebler elves or therm?te or controlled demolition.
All they have is assertions which do not stand up to scrutiny.

Is the "official explanation" perfect? No. But it is supported by evidence, science, and reality.

[RedIbis]

;4033342']

Correct.
Expert opinions live and die on their own merits. Some people can prove their assertions, other can not. In fact, assertions do not even have to be from experts. Any statement can that be proved or falsified can be taken into account. It needn't come from authority.

To date, the truth movement has not managed to prove any of their cliams of conspiracy or explosives or inside job or no-planes or spacebeams or keebler elves or therm?te or controlled demolition.
All they have is assertions which do not stand up to scrutiny.

Is the "official explanation" perfect? No. But it is supported by evidence, science, and reality.

Finally, it appears that someone understands the way appeal to authority works.

As for your last statement, that's the heart of this debate, and sadly neither side is going to influence the other much.

My only suggestion would be to keep your skeptical eye on the official explanations, and avoid twoofie theories. Isn't it much more important to test the veracity of such official explanations than quibble over CIT or LC?

If you truly value empirical evidence, science and reality, how can you be satisfied with a NIST WTC 7 report that proposes two novel phenomena that is not supported by physical evidence? This is speculation and proof by computer animation, not science.

[WildCat]

Sorry RedIbis, no point in debating a proven liar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4019879#post4019879) such as yourself.

[16.5]

"6. Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy, 1985-1992. Also served as Former Prime Minister, Undersecretary for Defense, and President of the Italian Senate."

BWHAHA!!! You fool! Did you do ANY research before you started cutting and pasting from morons? Do a search on this site for god's sake you freaking Truther! He was mocking his political opponents by calling them Truthers!

Ultimate fail!!

NEXT!!

[MikeW]

In my experience these officials are only taken seriously by truthers when it suits them.

Max Cleland delivered scathing criticism of Bush before resigning from the 9/11 Commission, for instance.

But Max Cleland also said Richard Myers was with him until around the time the Pentagon was hit, supporting Myers account of his whereabouts, and blowing a big hole in the supposed accuracy of Richard Clarke's timeline. Which shows that you can't use it to say when Cheney reached the bunker or Mineta arrived at the White House.

Can you guess which comments are highlighted, and which are virtually ignored?

[RedIbis]

But Max Cleland also said Richard Myers was with him until around the time the Pentagon was hit, supporting Myers account of his whereabouts, and blowing a big hole in the supposed accuracy of Richard Clarke's timeline. ?

To be clear, we are talking about the infamous tea party which Myers considered more important than addressing the fact that the country was under attack.

[CHF]

Radical logic.....do any of these people have evidence that would suggest a new investigation is needed?

[CptColumbo]

Just a small point, but the title of the thread is "Important officials." Since many of these officials are retired they are no longer important, merely influencial.

[johnny karate]

Threads like this only serve as more evidence of how impotent and inept Truthers are. With this kind of support, how have they not gotten a new investigation by now?

[johnny karate]

To be clear, we are talking about the infamous tea party which Myers considered more important than addressing the fact that the country was under attack.

In Myers defense, he may be just an innocent dupe. Perhaps someone "changed his mind" regarding the severity of the situation the way you believe the FDNY had their minds changed about what they experienced at WTC7.

[X]

If you truly value empirical evidence, science and reality, how can you be satisfied with a NIST WTC 7 report that proposes two novel phenomena that is not supported by physical evidence? This is speculation and proof by computer animation, not science.


"Novel Phenomenon"?

Please tell me you don't include the expansion of metal when heated in these "novel phenomenon".

[Jonnyclueless]

science meaning explosion sounds = bombs. Science meaning making claims with no evidence.

[bje]

Question: Would you agree that, because so many prominent officials question the official 9/11 story,...

So you still believe there is some kind of "official story" and no evidence?

What's your version of that canard?

[RedIbis]

;4033570']"Novel Phenomenon"?

Please tell me you don't include the expansion of metal when heated in these "novel phenomenon".

I don't, but it leading to global collapse is.

[johnny karate]

I don't, but it leading to global collapse is.

So is a 47-story building being "secretly" destroyed in broad daylight.

[16.5]

I don't, but it leading to global collapse is.

Gee Red, then you agree with NIST. We thought you was a truther.

[MikeW]

To be clear, we are talking about the infamous tea party which Myers considered more important than addressing the fact that the country was under attack.
Of course, that's the wonder of 9/11 truth.

Believe Clarke, Myers was lying about his whereabouts, 9/11 was an inside job.

Believe Cleland, Myers deliberately removed himself from the scene during a national emergency, 9/11 was still an inside job.

Life's so easy if you start with the "inside job" conclusion and work backwards.

[Mince]

Question: does the fact that many prominent officials question the official story suggest that something could be seriously wrong with it?


Does the fact that many more prominent officials don't question the official story suggest that something is not necessarily wrong with it?




Or are they all lunies and crackpots?



Is the only other option?

[jaydeehess]

Finally, it appears that someone understands the way appeal to authority works.

As for your last statement, that's the heart of this debate, and sadly neither side is going to influence the other much.

My only suggestion would be to keep your skeptical eye on the official explanations, and avoid twoofie theories. Isn't it much more important to test the veracity of such official explanations than quibble over CIT or LC?

If you truly value empirical evidence, science and reality, how can you be satisfied with a NIST WTC 7 report that proposes two novel phenomena that is not supported by physical evidence? This is speculation and proof by computer animation, not science.

Soooo, you going to return to the CTBUH thread and actually discuss WTC 7 or not?
Dictator Cheney says he is willing but has a problem with English not being his first language. Perhaps he could use a little help from someone for whom it is.

gotta keep my post short so as to avoid introducing a flood of words to this thread

[beachnut]

1. Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned December 2003.
2. Louis Freeh – Director of FBI, 1993-2001
3. General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret)
4. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.
5. Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA.
6. Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy, 1985-1992. Also served as Former Prime Minister, Undersecretary for Defense, and President of the Italian Senate.
7. Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.
8. Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during Reagan Administration.
9. Rep. Curt Weldon – Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman. Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman.
10. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Military Intelligence Officer, Defense Intelligence Agency.

...and many more.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Question: does the fact that many prominent officials question the official story suggest that something could be seriously wrong with it?

Or are they all lunies and crackpots?

If they only had some evidence to support their nut case ideas that you share with them.
You are evidence free, so are those on your list. Anyone can see that; why not you?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Straight from the Ken Ham school of creationism, this thread lists "experts" who "question" the "official story." Evolution must be wrong because AnswersinGenesis has a list of "scientists" who "doubt evolution." Why are there so many parallels between creationism and trutherism?

Strawman- no one said the OCT is wrong merely because it is questioned by a large number of relevant experts. Radical Logic merely said that questioning the OCT can't be called "fringe" or "crazy" since a large number of experts are sceptical of the official story.

[Tweeter]

Just a small point, but the title of the thread is "Important officials." Since many of these officials are retired they are no longer important, merely influencial.

I dont get your point.
Are you saying that once someone retires they no longer have a functional brain? Now i admit,some here at this forum this would apply to , but these people actually were very important and knew their job and inside workings of their field.

[Jonnyclueless]

Strawman- no one said the OCT is wrong merely because it is questioned by a large number of relevant experts. Radical Logic merely said that questioning the OCT can't be called "fringe" or "crazy" since a large number of experts are sceptical of the official story.

That's hardly a large group, and they are hardly experts.

Now should we make a list of many prominent people and experts who don't feel there is any need for a new redundant investigation? if you want to get into statistics, I don't think your own logic helps your cause.

[Travis]

Of the numerous investigations into 9/11 that have been conducted so far none have provided any evidence of an "Inside Job." What real difference would one more investigation make if you're willing to just dismiss all of the previous ones?

[johnny karate]

Strawman- no one said the OCT is wrong merely because it is questioned by a large number of relevant experts. Radical Logic merely said that questioning the OCT can't be called "fringe" or "crazy" since a large number of experts are sceptical of the official story.

Well, actually he said they were "important officials" not "experts". But what's the difference when you're just making up crap , right?

[SDC]

To be clear, we are talking about the infamous tea party which Myers considered more important than addressing the fact that the country was under attack.

Ah yes, the famous Red Ibis method of argumentum ad chainik.*

Footnote: "chainik" is transliterated Russian for "teapot." Also often used in Yiddish, or in Jewish slang. There is a familiar expression, something like "hokh mir a chainik," in Yiddish, which translates something like "[you] bang on me [as if I were] a teapot," and means roughly, "oh, give me a break" or "lay off me."

[Bobert]

If they believe that the government orchestrated the attacks on 9/11, then YES, they are indeed loonies. Why you ask? Because there is OVERWHELMING evidence that Al Queda planned and carried out the attacks. If any one of them believes in a controlled demolition theory then there credibility can immediately be discounted.

If so many of them are prominent, then why don't they get this new investigation going? I mean come on, you have had 7 years to do it.
You would think that the truthers would be putting pressure on all these "prominent people" and also getting these "prominent people" to help them with their ballot initiative in NY.

[Bobert]

It suggests that at least some of the criticisms of the official story may be worth looking into.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122619&page=13

Please address post 482.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89122&page=2

Please address post 42, second page.
GREAT!
Then stop wasting your time on internet forums and rally all of thsee, "prominent individuals" and lets get the ball rolling on a new investigation!

[RedIbis]

Ah yes, the famous Red Ibis method of argumentum ad chainik.*

Footnote: "chainik" is transliterated Russian for "teapot." Also often used in Yiddish, or in Jewish slang. There is a familiar expression, something like "hokh mir a chainik," in Yiddish, which translates something like "[you] bang on me [as if I were] a teapot," and means roughly, "oh, give me a break" or "lay off me."

As if attending a tea party instead of advising the president, as was his responsibility, isn't meshugganuh.

[SDC]

Pfeh. Hokh mir a chainik, Red I.

[funk de fino]

To be clear, we are talking about the infamous tea party which Myers considered more important than addressing the fact that the country was under attack.

Ah, one of your earlier lies on this forum. One you failed to back up when asked to prove it was a tea party or if Myers knew or was told during his meeting what was happening.

If he was not told during the meeting he could not possibly take any blame but Red cannot produce anything that would support his claim that Myers knew what was happening and ignored it yet he still makes quite disgusting accusations against this man. Pathetic Red, truly pathetic.

[RedIbis]

Pfeh. Hokh mir a chainik, Red I.

Not fluent but I remember the exclamations of my grandparents.

[RedIbis]

Ah, one of your earlier lies on this forum. One you failed to back up when asked to prove it was a tea party or if Myers knew or was told during his meeting what was happening.

If he was not told during the meeting he could not possibly take any blame but Red cannot produce anything that would support his claim that Myers knew what was happening and ignored it yet he still makes quite disgusting accusations against this man. Pathetic Red, truly pathetic.

Your sycophantic ravings are in defense of a man whose responsibility it was to stay in the loop, in the know, especially given the circumstances of the day.

What is the lie? Are you saying that Myers and Cleland weren't having a nice little tea party? You've seen Myers' own quotes.

[funk de fino]

Your sycophantic ravings are in defense of a man whose responsibility it was to stay in the loop, in the know, especially given the circumstances of the day.

Exactly what circumstances were apparent when he went into that meeting Red?

What was apparent to the majority of the world at that time was that there had been a horrible accident at the WTC tower. Why it would be any different for Myers is your problem only.

What is the lie? Are you saying that Myers and Cleland weren't having a nice little tea party? You've seen Myers' own quotes.

When you go to a meeting with your boss and you have a cup of tea during that meeting does it make it a tea party? Grow up.

This is your chance Red, start a thread and show us your evidence that Myers was informed during that meeting that the US was under attack and that he ignored it or was negligent. If you cannot, you should retract your accusations.

[RedIbis]

This is your chance Red, start a thread and show us your evidence that Myers was informed during that meeting that the US was under attack and that he ignored it or was negligent. If you cannot, you should retract your accusations.

No, this is your chance. Start a thread and then listen to everyone remind you that this was covered over the course of hundreds of posts.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No, this is your chance. Start a thread and then listen to everyone remind you that this was covered over the course of hundreds of posts.


Right. Yet you continue to bring it up as if there's something to your claim. I can't imagine why...

[RedIbis]

Right. Yet you continue to bring it up as if there's something to your claim. I can't imagine why...

My claim is nothing but what is easy to research and documented. Myers was in the meeting with Cleland nearly the entire time the attacks were taking place. He was looking forward to trying Cleland's mint tea.

Where's the claim?

[applecorped]

My claim is nothing but what is easy to research and documented. Myers was in the meeting with Cleland nearly the entire time the attacks were taking place. He was looking forward to trying Cleland's mint tea.

Where's the claim?

Was there cookies as well?

[RedIbis]

Was there cookies as well?

I'm not sure about cookies but apparently there were no phones, no cellphones, no pagers, beepers, or anything that would distract him from this very important meeting. Oh, and knocking on the door was apparently not an option for his staff.

[SezMe]

Just a small point, but the title of the thread is "Important officials." Since many of these officials are retired they are no longer important, merely influencial.
Actually, I have a quibble with the other word: "officials". What are a bunch of emeritus professors, for example, officials of? Nothing, as far as I can tell. So of the phrase "Important officials" only the first two words are wrong.

[funk de fino]

No, this is your chance. Start a thread and then listen to everyone remind you that this was covered over the course of hundreds of posts.

So you snip out the awkward questions Red?

Coward much?

Apparently you have never been able to show any evidence that it was a tea party and not a relevant business meeting and zero proof that Myers was negligent or had knowledge of an attack on the US and ignored it to continue his meeting.

[funk de fino]

I'm not sure about cookies but apparently there were no phones, no cellphones, no pagers, beepers, or anything that would distract him from this very important meeting. Oh, and knocking on the door was apparently not an option for his staff.

Proof?

I hope you are never unjustly accused of something as you may end up being treated as despicably by some ignoramus as you are treating Myers.

You do know that Cleland claims that as soon as Myers became aware of the attacks he jumped up and rushed off to action. You wouldn't deliberately leave that out of your little fantasy trip?

[Elizabeth I]

Was there cookies as well?

Yes, the NWO always have cookies at their meetings. Except for those...you know..."ceremonies" >>wink, wink<< when the 33rd-degrees show up. Then we have petits fours.

[Tweeter]

Yes, the NWO always have cookies at their meetings. Except for those...you know..."ceremonies" >>wink, wink<< when the 33rd-degrees show up. Then we have petits fours.
Dont forget the corn dogs!

[MIKILLINI]

Question: does the fact that many prominent officials question the official story suggest that something could be seriously wrong with it?

Or are they all lunies and crackpots?

What part of it are they questioning? Did they specify? Is what they are questioning a determining factor to warrant a new investigation? If so, why?
Is there evidence that creates such a compelling case?

[In My Spare Time]

I bet we could get a whole new Project Steve (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/) going here. Find more "important officials" (based on the rather loose definition implied by the OP) who do not see a need for a new investigation into responsibility for the events of 9/11, all of whom are named Steve (& Stephan & Stephanie).

[leftysergeant]

Not sure. Question: Does the fact that so many prominent officials question the official story not suggest anything to you?

In case you haven't been paying attention, more than half of those you listed are lunatics or liars. (Stubblebine is a good example of a lunatic and George Nelson is a flat out liar with possible white nationalist and Dominionist leanings.) A lot of the sane ones want to know how bush could have screwed up the defenses against an attack he should have known were coming. This is just dimbulb Miller's crap recycled.

[leftysergeant]

I dont get your point.
Are you saying that once someone retires they no longer have a functional brain? Now i admit,some here at this forum this would apply to , but these people actually were very important and knew their job and inside workings of their field.

Some of them are senile, some never had all their headbolts torqued right to begin with, some of them are Nazi agents-provacateurs.

I am convinced that Cosiga is losing his marbles.

[xinit]

Question: Would you agree that, because so many prominent officials question the official 9/11 story, then those who doubt it are not necessarily "fringe," "nutty," "irrational," or "stupid?"

Question: do you know what 'appeal to authority' is?

The President of ITALY wants an investigation; who cares?

[xinit]

Paris Hilton is prominent. What does she say about 911? Inquiring minds want to know...

I hear Jenny McCarthy blames childhood vaccinations for the collapses.

[jaydeehess]

My claim is nothing but what is easy to research and documented. Myers was in the meeting with Cleland nearly the entire time the attacks were taking place. He was looking forward to trying Cleland's mint tea.

Where's the claim?

besides, supposedly, drinking tea, what else were these two men doing at that time?

[JamesB]

On what planet is Bob Bowman considered an "important official"?

[jaydeehess]

That's what you're doing.

Again. If it's commonly accepted that, of the officials I listed:

"NONE of them have the same "questions" that the 9-11 Sheepers have.

NONE of them think thermite may have brought down the towers.

NONE of them think Al Qaeda is innocent.

NONE of them think the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

NONE of them think WTC 7 was a CD?"

then do you have a link to an article or something to support this claim?

Don't dodge.

I just read Weldon's Press conference
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050917&articleId=965
In which he speaks of the Able Danger and the suppression of the information.

No where in his discourse about the matter does he express any view that would contradict the above statements except perhaps the first , most ambiguous one about the same questions that the TM is asking.

At best it would seem that Able Danger is an example of collecting data and not analyzing it until after the fact of 911 or having uncovered suggestions of the plot, not having acted on it. So the worst that could then be said, without resorting to any deep conspiracy, is that it was destroyed to cover-the-butt of those who would have been responsible for not using this intel. The absolute worst case including some type of conspiracy, would be that it was LIHOP, someone or some group, knew much of the detail of the attacks in advance.

the Able Danger material he speaks of were destroyed in the summer of 2000. A full year before the attacks so one would wonder just how much detail there could be concerning dates and flight numbers for instance.

It is pretty clear that Weldon is after whoever dropped the ball, not people who caused the attacks. So that would also seem to limit the probability that all others in your list who are part of the Able Danger miasma believe in anything worse than the possibility that there was intel about the attacks but that it was not used, and, after the fact, destroyed so as to cover up the fact that it was there and not used.



Your title of this thread is so very open to interpretation. Is there anyone in that list who does indeed believe that;

thermite may have brought down the towers.

Al Qaeda is innocent.

the phone calls from Flight 93 may be fake.

WTC 7 was a CD?

there are few choices concerning the belief in these claims by the people on the list.
- They do not believe them at all and have never mentioned it because one does not normally go around outlining what one does NOT believe, unless specifically asked.

- They do believe one or more of them but have not spoken out in which case no one could say if that is the case or not.

- They believe in one or more and they have said as much publically.


However, unless presented with evidence that these people do believe the extrodinary claims outlined, it would be logical to conclude that they do not. Let's face it, those 4 TM claims are in fact 'extrodinary' and one thing that characterises extrodinary claims is that they are the minority.

In other words unless you can prove the assertive statements, for instance "Mr. soandso believes that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition" , then it stands to reason that it is most probable that the negative statement "Mr. soandso does not believe that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition", is the truth.

[jaydeehess]

On what planet is Bob Bowman considered an "important official"?

The funny thing (in a dyslexic fashion) is that when I first saw that I saw "Bob Berman" who , IIRC, is an ApolloHoax debunker.

[RedIbis]

besides, supposedly, drinking tea, what else were these two men doing at that time?

Ironically, they were discussing national security. I can't imagine what national security discussion took precedence over a national security emergency.

[jaydeehess]

Ironically, they were discussing national security. I can't imagine what national security discussion took precedence over a national security emergency.

So it wasn't just a tea party, more hyperbole from Mr.Ibis.
How very unusual.:rolleyes:

[SDC]

What did they do with the dormouse?

[xinit]

Ironically, they were discussing national security. I can't imagine what national security discussion took precedence over a national security emergency.

How is this ironic?