A proven lie by DR Griffin

[RedIbis]

#5 Red;



We now know that this, if not totally untrue, needs to be modified, to restate,

"prior to 9/11, no steel framed SKYSCRAPER has ever COMPLETELY collapsed SOLELY due to fire."

Beyond that, it is a strawman, because NIST has said it was more than just fire that caused the buildings to collapse.

TAM:)

That's not the language that NIST uses.

[RedIbis]

TAM,
Please stop quibbling over semantics. If he says that the fires weren't big and you say they were, that's not a lie, that's a difference of opinion.

[T.A.M.]

TAM,
Please stop quibbling over semantics. If he says that the fires weren't big and you say they were, that's not a lie, that's a difference of opinion.

Yes but look at the context. He is claiming the commission ignored such things...they did not, obviously. That is a lie.

What about all the others I have presented above? you realize the more I go on, the worse I am going to make him look...it has all been done before. Your man is a fraud.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

That's not the language that NIST uses.

He is talking about the commission ignoring the fact that....

NIST stated (paraphrasing) that the collapse of the towers was caused by "A combination of plane impact damage to the steel structure, the subsequent office fires started by the jet fuel, and maintained by the office contents, along with the removal of a substantial amount of the spray on fire-proofing".

My point was that his comment, besides being irrelevant, is old and dated even within truther circles. I merely suggested the more recent, well adapted (due to presentation of refuting evidence) truther version of the canard.

However, I will forgive him for that one, as it is an older version of his work. I am sure, being the precise, immaculate scholar that he is, that he has changed it as such.

TAM:)

[dtugg]

What about the time that Grifter cited a video game to "prove" that off track or unresponsive planes are ordinarily intercepted within minutes. Two choices here: Amazingly incompetent or amazingly dishonest. Which is it?

[T.A.M.]

#8 Red;


8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

1. Once again the fires were not small, and not localized, they involved multiple floors and photos from the building on that day show they were far from either small or local.

2. I do not recall if they mentioned the WTC7 Collapse in the report or not (I have not read the report in the last year or so). I know they mentioned the building, and if they did mention the collapse, it was brief (like a one liner). However, I plead forgetfulness on this point. To me, it is unimportant, but if it is true (that they did not mention the collapse) I will concede his #8 point.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#9 Red:


9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

I do not want to get into the ten features (though others here may) as it is beyond the point I am trying to make. He doesn't seem inclined to list them for us in the paper I linked to earlier. However, I will concede, until someone proves it wrong, that the collapses did have 10 features SUGGESTIVE of CD.

As you would say...SO?

SUGGESTIVE? Well that is real scientific.

Apes have opposable thumbs, two arms, two legs, a neck with a head on it, are capable of using tools, are capable of multiple emotions.

Are apes human beings? Nope, but they sure do share a whole lot of common features.

Here I would say he is not technically lying, but rather is speculating without evidence.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#10 Red.


10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

He is technically correct. The commission did use the words "Hollow Steel Shaft" to describe the inner cores of the towers. To the layperson the final report was created for, it would be the easiest way to help them visualize things. Effectively, compared to the rest of the structure, the center of the buildings were like a "hollow steel shaft". the proof that they did not mean it literally, is in the fact that they state that this area housed the elevators and stairwells.

Now to the person who is not a flaming idiot, it becomes clear that obviously if their are elevators and stairwells (and the mechanics associated with them) in the core, that the core is not LITERALLY a "Hollow Steel Shaft".

so I concede, that technically he is correct that they used those terms, but he is wrong that they ignored the presence of the core columns, nor has he presented any evidence that they did (ignore them).

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#11 Red.


11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

Larry Silverstein never made a statement that "he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7". As a result he is wrong here, and so it is a lie.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#12 Red.


12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

Oh this is a good one.

(A) Quickly by what definition?
(B) Before it could be analyzed for explosives? Says who? What official has said the steel was taken away before it could be analyzed (for explosives or anything else)?

The fact that it was taken away within days or weeks does not mean (A) it was taken away quickly, or (B) that officials did not have the opportunity to analyze it for explosives or other things. He has presented no proof to support his false claim.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#13 Red...another good one.


13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel — that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel — made no sense in this case (30).

So he is saying that because WTC7 was evacuated before it collapsed, that the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel (that some might be trapped under the rubble) makes no sense.

(A) These points are suppose to be (according to his own title and forward) about the commission and their omissions. Well who gave him this official reason? He claims the Commission does not mention the collapse of WTC7, so right off the bat he can't be claiming that they gave this reason. If it wasn't the commission that gave this official reason, then who was it...joe the plumber?

(B) Simply because you order the evacuation of a building does not mean that you assume that there was noone in there. You still have to approach as if there was.

(C) without a source for his "official reason" indicating which building they were talking about, how do we know they were not referring to the WTC1/2 debris pile.

TAM:)

[Algebra34]

#13 Red...another good one.



So he is saying that because WTC7 was evacuated before it collapsed, that the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel (that some might be trapped under the rubble) makes no sense.

(A) These points are suppose to be (according to his own title and forward) about the commission and their omissions. Well who gave him this official reason? He claims the Commission does not mention the collapse of WTC7, so right off the bat he can't be claiming that they gave this reason. If it wasn't the commission that gave this official reason, then who was it...joe the plumber?

(B) Simply because you order the evacuation of a building does not mean that you assume that there was noone in there. You still have to approach as if there was.

(C) without a source for his "official reason" indicating which building they were talking about, how do we know they were not referring to the WTC1/2 debris pile.

TAM:)

You mean everyone in NYC knew that WTC7 was going to collapse but they also feared people might still be inside? When the figher fighters were "pulled" according to debunkers they also thought people could still be inside? I don't remember hearing that reported anywhere. This is why the steel needed to be destroyed? This is news to me.

[beachnut]

#11 Red.



Larry Silverstein never made a statement that "he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7". As a result he is wrong here, and so it is a lie.

TAM:)

8 years and the truth/liars are talking "pull". How pathetic.

[T.A.M.]

Well to be fair, Griffin made these gaffs in 2006, so only 5 years after, but he has not only not corrected them, he still promotes/pushes most if not all of them.

TAM:)

[Edx]

You mean everyone in NYC knew that WTC7 was going to collapse but they also feared people might still be inside? When the figher fighters were "pulled" according to debunkers they also thought people could still be inside? .

They dont need to have been inside, there were firefighting operations going on in the immediate surrounding area.

The firefighters and the fire depertment commanders talk about how they "pulled" everyone away from the building and that they kept pushing them further and further back.

[T.A.M.]

1. No one (except Algebra) said that everyone in NYC knew it was going to collapse. Many people close to the site, or people who needed to know, like suspected that collapse was imminent.

2. The firefighters were pulled because the evacuation of the building has already occurred, and the area was becoming too unsafe for further rescue/fire fighting. I did not say that they did not suspect that the area was free of victims. What I said is that you cannot ASSUME that is so. You have to assume there may have been people in their that did not hear the order, or went back in after, or people who might have been near (despite the pull back) the building, and were covered by the building when it collapsed.

Of course Explaining this to Algebra is like trying to explain it to a 4 year old...over their head.

TAM:)

[Algebra34]

1. No one (except Algebra) said that everyone in NYC knew it was going to collapse.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5333921&postcount=130

[Thunder]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5333921&postcount=130

knew...and expected...are two very different things.

I would expect you to understand this.

seeing the 1st tower leaning, I thought it may go...and it did.

i hoped that the 2nd tower would not go, but since the first went, it was clear that the 2nd could go as well, and it unfortunately did.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, so naturally many people were not as concerned that it would collapse. but hours later with no firefighting, it too wen't poof. no major surprise..as the precedent had been set.

that said, I am a Jew, I am a New York City government employee, and I have a relative in the NYPD Intelligence Division, so clearly I was in on it.

:rolleyes:

[Newtons Bit]

that said, I am a Jew, I am a New York City government employee, and I have a relative in the NYPD Intelligence Division, so clearly I was in on it.

:rolleyes:

You had us at Jew ;)

[Thunder]

You had us at Jew ;)

I know Newtons, I know.

:D

[johnny karate]

David Ray Griffin is a registered sex offender. I know this because he recently moved into my neighborhood and came to my door to introduce himself as mandated by law.

[Algebra34]

David Ray Griffin is a registered sex offender. I know this because he recently moved into my neighborhood and came to my door to introduce himself as mandated by law.

Is that suppose to be funny?

[Thunder]

I think its hilarious.

[TexasJack]

Not as funny as the evidence the Grifter tries to present.

[johnny karate]

Is that suppose to be funny?

David Ray Griffin once raped a giraffe.

[AJM8125]

David Ray Griffin once raped a giraffe.

But in fairness, I heard he was beggin' for it.

[TheBigKahuna]

TAM,
Please stop quibbling over semantics. If he says that the fires weren't big and you say they were, that's not a lie, that's a difference of opinion.

It's not a difference of opinion, it is a fact that can be verified. Firefighter quotes show that WTC 7 had large, extensive fires. (Guess you ignore information that doesn't fit your expectations.) That's not a difference of opinion. A difference of opinion would be preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla. It's a distortion or omission, and, being deliberate to support a specific point of view, becomes a lie. :cool:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

David Ray Griffin once raped a giraffe.

I heard he once raped an iguana!

Could that mean that there's llizard people running every where?

[Dave Rogers]

TAM,
Please stop quibbling over semantics. If he says that the fires weren't big and you say they were, that's not a lie, that's a difference of opinion.

If Griffin is claiming that it constitutes a lie, distortion or omission by the 9/11 Commission that they disagreed with the personal opinion of a theologian concerning the size of a fire - which opinion had not been expressed to them at the time - then that is quite clearly a lie. Strangely, when people accuse you of lying, you frequently defend yourself by saying it was a mistake or a difference of opinion, yet in your world this defence is not available to the 9/11 Commission.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

You mean everyone in NYC knew that WTC7 was going to collapse but they also feared people might still be inside? When the figher fighters were "pulled" according to debunkers they also thought people could still be inside? I don't remember hearing that reported anywhere. This is why the steel needed to be destroyed? This is news to me.

Griffin is referring to the removal of steel from the whole of Ground Zero, and saying that search and rescue should have been unnecessary because WTC7 was evacuated. He seems to have forgotten that some other buildings also collapsed on 9/11, and that there were actually some living survivors to be rescued. Do you think Griffin honestly forgot that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed on 9/11, or do you think he was trying to twist words to make it look like there was no need to remove the WTC1 and WTC2 steel either?

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Ok Red, here is his second big falsehood.



Even if the sporadic and sketchy accounts of Arabs in bars turned out to be accounts of Atta and others (the girl who alleged to be his girlfriend in Florida has been proven a fraud so I only mention her and her account here in this context), we have this below...

We know that there is a sect of Islam that believe one can act like the infidels if it results in the cause of Allah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir_wal-Hijra


TAM:)

TAM they don't have to be part of any sect...

I live in the UAE, and ever three weeks or so when I go to the liquor store, I see Emirati Muslims sitting in their cars with the indian shopworkers running liquor in and out..

again, I have sat down with a local sheik and shared Hennessy with...

[TruthersLie]

DRG has admitted when he has been wrong several times. I don't see this as a weakness at all. He has corrected himself on the cell phone/airphone issue. Granted I'm not aware of him following up on the "still alive" claims, and if not, I think he should reconsider due to the commonness of those names, and the simple fact that alive hijackers can be interviewed today and have not been, but even still, the overwhelming majority of his research holds up.

Other than this, you have very little on DRG, and unfortunately, you won't read this book on WTC 7. Therefore, you will remain ignorant of NIST's flawed simulations.

Very little Red?

Ryan mackey's white paper has over 150 errors in debunking 9/11 debunking by DRG in 150 pages.

Yet you still believe DRG?

Again, what are his qualifications to discuss any technical/engineering report... did he take engineering courses in his Theology work?

[cantonear1968]

This may have been covered, but another good lie by Griffin is his claim for fighter intercepts which he outlines in his "9/11 Commission: Ommissions and Distortions" book. This is outlined well by RKOwens on youtube. I can't post a link so search "9/11 Debunked: NORAD "Stand Down" Disproven" at 1:35 in. I would say that submitting NORAD procedures as fact when you get them from a flight simulator guide would qualify as a lie.

I would also say that since Griffin is listed as a script consultant on "Loose Change" he would be responsible for all the lies in that farce.

And lastly, I think even if you could make the argument that even if you reprinted things without knowing they were lies, he is still responsible for not investigating adequately enough. I'm sure there's a psychological term; plausible deniability might fight. But when you present "eveidence" that you don't KNOW is false but you know it might be would still qualify as a lie. Kind of like Bush and Cheney with the WMD's!

[T.A.M.]

Trutherslie:

It is important here, because Griffin is debating (or calling it a lie) the opinion of the commission that Atta and the others were "fanatically religious". I suspect those you speak of are not so...perhaps Atta and the others were not either, but my point was that even if the unverified sparse witness accounts of "Arabs" in bars in Florida the nights before 9/11 were true, that still does not mean Atta and the others were not religious, and the existence of the Takfir sect, and their possible membership in it, is evidence of that.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

And lastly, I think even if you could make the argument that even if you reprinted things without knowing they were lies, he is still responsible for not investigating adequately enough. I'm sure there's a psychological term; plausible deniability might fight. But when you present "eveidence" that you don't KNOW is false but you know it might be would still qualify as a lie. Kind of like Bush and Cheney with the WMD's!

Your bolded is part of the debate here. Red, and many other truthers, claim that DRG is a top notch, dedicateds and thorough researcher...I beg to differ.

TAM:)

[McHrozni]

This may have been covered, but another good lie by Griffin is his claim for fighter intercepts which he outlines in his "9/11 Commission: Ommissions and Distortions" book. This is outlined well by RKOwens on youtube. I can't post a link so search "9/11 Debunked: NORAD "Stand Down" Disproven" at 1:35 in. I would say that submitting NORAD procedures as fact when you get them from a flight simulator guide would qualify as a lie.

I've been focusing on that part for quite some time now, yes. I've submitted the official documentation for intercept procedures, examples of intercepts taking longer than 10 minutes, showing intercepts don't happen in such a period of time, cited articles showing the time from order to scramble to take off can be as long as 15 minutes, etc etc etc, and yet the twoofer remains unconvinced. It has agreed with me that I have shown "compelling" evidence the claim is false, and left it at that, while saying I'm still wrong.

I would also say that since Griffin is listed as a script consultant on "Loose Change" he would be responsible for all the lies in that farce.

Woot? Nice! Thanks :)

McHrozni

[cantonear1968]

"I've been focusing on that part for quite some time now, yes"

I figured I'd be a Johnny-Come-Lately with this but I'm used to debating with people on youtube who are just discovering "squibs" and "the dancing Israeli's"!

Cheers!

[TexasJack]

I figured I'd be a Johnny-Come-Lately with this but I'm used to debating with people on youtube who are just discovering "squibs" and "the dancing Israeli's"!

Cheers!

Wow, you are brave.

[cantonear1968]

"Wow, you are brave."

Not so much bravery, Jack, as it is fun to mock and ridicule them!

[Edx]

I would also say that since Griffin is listed as a script consultant on "Loose Change" he would be responsible for all the lies in that farce.



Which Loose Change?

[Edx]

TAM they don't have to be part of any sect...

I live in the UAE, and ever three weeks or so when I go to the liquor store, I see Emirati Muslims sitting in their cars with the indian shopworkers running liquor in and out..

again, I have sat down with a local sheik and shared Hennessy with...

Isnt it kind of like saying Christians dont steal or murder or commit adultery because Christianity forbids these things?

[T.A.M.]

For the next few points he makes, I will address the overt, or implied arguments he is making, rather then whether the point is a "lie". The reason for this, to be honest, is a lack of time or desire to go through, with a fine tooth comb, the Commission report at this time, to see if they omitted, or not, the information he is presenting. Rather, I will address the relevance, and validity of the arguments being made by his comments etc....

That said,

#14 Red:


14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

The implication Griffin is making, is that Guiliani was given foreknowledge of the collapses and either (A) was in on it and ok with it, or (B) refused to tell others.

1. How long before the collapses was Guiliani informed? Was it days before or minutes before?
2. Was Guiliani told they were going to collapse? In imminent danger of collapsing? Might collapse?
3. Who told him? The neocons? The fire Chief?

So many possibilities, most of which would be completely understandable and benign, yet Griffin implies, of course, that it is nefarious, that it is due to Guiliani being part of a cover up to make the towers come down.

To be honest I remember somebody discussing this very point, and that the details revealed nothing more then someone warning them that due to the damage, the towers were due to imminently fail and collapse.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#15. Also a real gem...so old.


15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

1. They were with Securecom, one of many firms that helped design and or upkeep WTC security. They had little to any input in regard to the day to day running.
2. Just go here, it explains everything...
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

Enough said...another insinuation without evidence or fact.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#16 - #22 are all Pentagon issues, so here they are together...


16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner — even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras — including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike — could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

West Wing Issue:
Who said Al-Qaeda has a particular area or side of the Pentagon in mind. You think they picked a particular side of the twin towers? You think they picked Shanksville for its ruralness? It is pretty clear that Flight 77 hit the side of the Pentagon that it could hit. There was no evidence of "wing selection".

Damage to Pentagon:
DRG bases his accusations, in part, on photos where the damage is obscured. The damage, obviously, is not a cookie cutter outline of a 757, but it is, none the less, more than sufficient to have been caused by a jet airliner.

The collapse and entrance hole:
1. How can a photo show that the collapse occurred 30 minutes later? It is a photo.
2. DRG once again is referring to obscured and/or incorrect photos here. There are photos which show the hole on the second floor, with the damage to the bottom floor obscured. There are photos of the inside exit hole in the pentagon, both of which, if misused, would LEAD people to believe they are too small. However, the few pics we have, prior to collapse, of the impact hole/area, does show damage consistent in size with what you would expect from a jet airliner flying into the reinforced building at 500 mph.

Testimony that no plane debris was seen at the Pentagon:
What testimony? That there were no major parts left..no large sections. So? The plane struck a reinforced concrete structure going 500mph. I would expect little more that bits and pieces...

ANti-missile defense discussion:
Well why would they bring up something that doesn't exist? They didn't bring up the herd of unicorns they had defending the pentagon either.

Camera/video footage:
What has been released has shown nothing. What has not been released has been reviewed by the FBI and found not to cover the area of the Pentagon that was hit at the time of the attacks.

Rumsfeld "Missile" line:
oh dear god, do I address this idiotic claim or not? Oh well, ok. He CLEARLY was referring to the plane being used "LIKE A MISSILE" but did not include the "LIKE" part. Do you really think that one of the alleged (by truthers) key plotters in this CT just gave it away like that in front of cameras? REALLY?

TAM:)

[Audible Click]

David Ray Griffin once raped a giraffe.




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/266624b0f4982e2a86.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18290)

[AJM8125]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/266624b0f4982e2a86.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18290)

See? That little come hither look. I told ya he was beggin' for it.

[Thunder]

i can't think of any logical reason..why a Truther would lie. none whatsoever.

:rolleyes:

[Obviousman]

What about the "... 95% of the world's architects agree with us.." claim?

That is a blatent lie.

[Edx]

What about the "... 95% of the world's architects agree with us.." claim?

That is a blatent lie.

No no no, he missed out the part that Gage adds in. Gage says 93% agree with them after seeing their presentation live.

[Obviousman]

No no no, he missed out the part that Gage adds in. Gage says 93% agree with them after seeing their presentation live.

No, he said that 95% of the world's architects agree with them.

[RedIbis]

#15. Also a real gem...so old.



1. They were with Securecom, one of many firms that helped design and or upkeep WTC security. They had little to any input in regard to the day to day running.
2. Just go here, it explains everything...
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

Enough said...another insinuation without evidence or fact.

TAM:)

Your definition of a lie is very loose. DRG's statement is factual. Bush and Walker were on the BoDs. Securecom handled security, not just for the WTC but also Dulles, United and American Airlines.

He doesn't make any suggestions about day to day operations. You are building strawmen. Just stick to outright lies and willful deception. Since you guys are on a witch hunt it should be easy to come up with something a whole lot meatier than these little quibbles.

[JihadJane]

Very little Red?

Ryan mackey's white paper has over 150 errors in debunking 9/11 debunking by DRG in 150 pages.

Yet you still believe DRG?

Again, what are his qualifications to discuss any technical/engineering report... did he take engineering courses in his Theology work?

How did Ryan makes so many errors?

[DGM]

Your definition of a lie is very loose. DRG's statement is factual. Bush and Walker were on the BoDs. Securecom handled security, not just for the WTC but also Dulles, United and American Airlines.

He doesn't make any suggestions about day to day operations. You are building strawmen. Just stick to outright lies and willful deception. Since you guys are on a witch hunt it should be easy to come up with something a whole lot meatier than these little quibbles.
Don't researchers actually check reports and not leave it up to the reader to "fill in the blanks"? Why do you not question him for his "inconsistencies" like you do the "official story"?

[Dave Rogers]

Your definition of a lie is very loose. DRG's statement is factual. Bush and Walker were on the BoDs. Securecom handled security, not just for the WTC but also Dulles, United and American Airlines.

Now, Red, you know that's a lie. Securacom had a contract to supply security equipment to the WTC, which they were released from in 1998. They were no more in charge of security at the WTC than Boeing are in charge of American Airlines. And Griffin's claim was that Securacom were in charge of security, not that they were peripherally involved in it.

Dave

[twinstead]

Even the things that he says that one can't call "lies" to me appear to be deliberate attempts at spinning things that may have alternate, more mundane explanations toward a conspiracy. That's not the definition of lies, it's the definition of propaganda.

[DGM]

Even the things that he says that one can't call "lies" to me appear to be deliberate attempts at spinning things that may have alternate, more mundane explanations toward a conspiracy. That's not the definition of lies, it's the definition of propaganda.
And he needs to do this because:

(A)his case is weak

(B) his research is that weak

(C) he needs to make a living selling books

(D) the rubes will buy it without question

(E) all of the above

[Edx]

Bush and Walker were on the BoDs.

Not on 911.

Securecom handled security, not just for the WTC

No they didnt.


God you're bad at this, even after all this time.

[Edx]

No, he said that 95% of the world's architects agree with them.

Do you have a full quote? But anyway Gage thinks that they agree with them if only they could see their presentation live! Maybe they give away free candy if they say they agree.

[T.A.M.]

Your definition of a lie is very loose. DRG's statement is factual. Bush and Walker were on the BoDs. Securecom handled security, not just for the WTC but also Dulles, United and American Airlines.

He doesn't make any suggestions about day to day operations. You are building strawmen. Just stick to outright lies and willful deception. Since you guys are on a witch hunt it should be easy to come up with something a whole lot meatier than these little quibbles.

They didn't "handle" security Red! They were one of many companies that provided security for the buildings. As a matter of fact, IIRC Securcom were more involved in the DESIGN of the security then the day to day security issues.

As for my definition of a "Lie" well, it was DRG who said that we can call Omissions "Lies", so it is his definition that is quite loose, thank you very much.

DRG is a snake oil salesman of the highest order, so he is often very particular in his wording to IMPLY or INSINUATE untruths and fabrications, without coming out and frankly lying...but you know that, don't you.

I will stick to making him look like the evil snake oil salesman that he is.

TAM:)

[TruthersLie]

Your definition of a lie is very loose. DRG's statement is factual. Bush and Walker were on the BoDs. Securecom handled security, not just for the WTC but also Dulles, United and American Airlines.

He doesn't make any suggestions about day to day operations. You are building strawmen. Just stick to outright lies and willful deception. Since you guys are on a witch hunt it should be easy to come up with something a whole lot meatier than these little quibbles.

Red.

I am still waiting to see where DRG has any basis to dissect an engineering report.

I have difficulty believing he took any courses above college algebra in his degrees. (maybe a research methods class...)

It should be easy for you to tell me a reason I should believe an untrained theologian over thousands of professional engineers (and the lack of any published peer reviewed refutation by REAL engineers) which states NIST is wrong.

[TruthersLie]

How did Ryan makes so many errors?

I know reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit...

and i also know that I stated it a bit vague...

DRG makes over 150 technical mistakes in about 150 pages in his crapola of debunking 9/11 debunking which is pointed out by R. Mackey.

Is that better twoof?
Want to comment on why you would believe anyone with over an average of one error a page?

[T.A.M.]

#23 Red.


23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

Once again, not a lie, simply an insinuation and accusation. The insinuation that the Secret Service knew "The Plan" and hence had no fear for the President's safety, and so left him at the school. The accusation that the Commission supported such.

Well for starters, he does this with NO PROOF. NO EVIDENCE that the SS knew anything. He goes on the FALSE PREMISE that SS should have whisked the president away from the school immediately, without consultation, because he was in imminent danger of a plane coming to get him and crash into the school.

Richard Clarke describes in clear detail what actually occurred with this in his book "Against All Enemies" where he explains that the head of the SS, Brian Stafford came up to him once the attacks were underway, and discussed what to do with the POTUS at that time. So there is no "Instantly move him elsewhere" in this case. The SS contacted their boss, and asked him what to do. He then turned to Richard Clarke. Richard Clarke told him NOT to bring him back to Washington DC.

So clearly there was some confusion as to what to do with the POTUS even then (which according to Clarke's book was sometime after 9:28AM EST).

Also, you must take in to account, that even if the SS wanted to get the POTUS out, Bush may have resisted, and as he said, remained in order to project "Calmness".

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#24 Red, related to #23...


24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

Also from Clarke's book, Brian Stafford asked for fighter escorts for AF1 when talking to Clarke about getting the POTUS on board. Clarke then contacted Major Frenzel and asked him to comply with the request to have fighter escorts for AF1.

Minutes later Dick Myers informed Clarke that they had 6 F-16's on route to Florida to Rendez Vous with AF1.

So is Dick Clarke a liar? Where is the proof that any of the above is untrue????

TAM:)

[Thunder]

Your definition of a lie is very loose. DRG's statement is factual. Bush and Walker were on the BoDs. Securecom handled security, not just for the WTC but also Dulles, United and American Airlines.

why do Truthers lie? kinda kills the whole point of calling themselves the "Truth" movement.

[Obviousman]

Do you have a full quote? But anyway Gage thinks that they agree with them if only they could see their presentation live! Maybe they give away free candy if they say they agree.

Yep. From the broadcast, at 26 mins 29 sec:

"... 95% of architects and engineers across the world, including Jan Utzon, architect of the Sydney Opera House, his son, agree with us, sign our petition..."

That is a blatant lie.

[TexasJack]

Yep. From the broadcast, at 26 mins 29 sec:

"... 95% of architects and engineers across the world, including Jan Utzon, architect of the Sydney Opera House, his son, agree with us, sign our petition..."

That is a blatant lie.

Yes, if that were true, then why does his little Mickey Mouse club have such a dismal number of members?

[Edx]

That is a blatant lie.

Assuming thats in context it isnt just a lie, its really stupid.

[TruthersLie]

I can't help it TAM

[QUOTE=T.A.M.;5351987
So is Dick Clarke a liar?
TAM:)[/QUOTE]

Of course he is. He was never in NYC on New Years Eve... Any of them. He was in florida. It was a body double.

And American Bandstand? I don't think so... it was the NWO talking points. It had nothing to do with the music.

[RedIbis]

Also, you must take in to account, that even if the SS wanted to get the POTUS out, Bush may have resisted, and as he said, remained in order to project "Calmness".

TAM:)

All you've got is semantics, quibbling over wording. In this instance you make the false assumption that Bush would have any ability to resist the SS, who operate on their own authority, regardless of if the POTUS resists.

DRG's point, and it's a valid one, is that not knowing how many planes were hijacked, the SS should never have left Bush in a public location, a location that was previously publicized.

[funk de fino]

All you've got is semantics, quibbling over wording. In this instance you make the false assumption that Bush would have any ability to resist the SS, who operate on their own authority, regardless of if the POTUS resists.

DRG's point, and it's a valid one, is that not knowing how many planes were hijacked, the SS should never have left Bush in a public location, a location that was previously publicized.

Where was the nearest, secure, non public location?

[BigAl]

DRG's point, and it's a valid one, is that not knowing how many planes were hijacked, the SS should never have left Bush in a public location, a location that was previously publicized.

Unsubstantiated conjecture.

[dtugg]

DRG's point, and it's a valid one, is that not knowing how many planes were hijacked, the SS should never have left Bush in a public location, a location that was previously publicized.

A fraudulent theologian and a lying red bird know more about protecting the POTUS than the Secret Service. Sure. :rolleyes:

[RedIbis]

Where was the nearest, secure, non public location?

CENTCOM is about an hours drive north of Sarasota, assuming you're driving close to the speed limit. It's probably a lot quicker for a presidential motorcade. Though there may have been secured locations closer to Booker.

[BigAl]

CENTCOM is about an hours drive north of Sarasota, assuming you're driving close to the speed limit. It's probably a lot quicker for a presidential motorcade. Though there may have been secured locations closer to Booker.

So what? What did the SS do wrong?

[RedIbis]

So what? What did the SS do wrong?

Well let's see. At the time the POTUS was in Booker there were reports that up to 11 planes had been hijacked. The elementary school is not far at all from a major airport, two if you count Tampa/St. Pete. So hijackers crafty enough to crash a plane into the Pentagon after the POTUS addresses the nation that we are under attack, could have certainly been assumed to be able to crash a plane into Booker.

The SS could not have taken any chances. Instead, schoolchildren are lined up behind Bush for his photo op to tell the whole world we are under attack. I suppose the kids felt real great about having to stand there, as opposed to being evacuated and returned to the safety of their own homes.

This is what makes me laugh about the Bush wanted to present a calm appearance bs. Those kids lives were at risk. If the military couldn't stop an attack on the Pentagon, they wouldn't have been able to stop an attack on Booker.

If your argument is that the reason Bush wasn't hustled out of Booker is because the SS knew he wasn't in any danger, you won't get any argument from me.

[BigAl]

If your argument is that the reason Bush wasn't hustled out of Booker is because the SS knew he wasn't in any danger, you won't get any argument from me.

In this case, I'll go with the people who knew the ground and had the responsibility. That would be the SS.

IMO, having tried in Google Earth, the school was an impossible target from the air for a hijacked jet. The SS supported by the local cops had plenty of firepower if anyone tried anything from the ground. Bad Guys would get nowhere near the kids in the school.


IMO, the nightmare scenario for the SS was some Bad Guys with RPGs waiting by the road on the way to the airport where the POTUS aircraft was waiting and expecting POTUS to rush out as soon as the first plane crash.

SS had time to round up a large motorcade as a complication and maybe plan an route other than the one they came in on and get local cops to cover it when they scooted to AF1.

But I don't know. I'm not in the SS and I wasn't there that day.

Either were you.

There is absolutely no reason to associate what Bush did at the schoolhouse with the Arab's execution of the plan to hijack and crash 4 planes.

[dtugg]

LOL.

Apparently in RedIbisWorld some elementary school in Florida is as easy to hit from the air as one of the world's largest, most distinct buildings.

[RedIbis]

LOL.

Apparently in RedIbisWorld some elementary school in Florida is as easy to hit from the air as one of the world's largest, most distinct buildings.

What's laughable is that you think the hijackers would have relied solely on visual cues to reach their targets.

[dtugg]

What's laughable is your pathetic strawman.

[BigAl]

What's laughable is that you think the hijackers would have relied solely on visual cues to reach their targets.

What navaids would they have?

In the last mile, eyeballs is all they've got. Having never sat in the pilot's seat of a big jet, I assume that vision over the nose as if to to "strafe" a ground target really sucks.

If you think there is some other navaid, name it. don't leave us hanging.

[Edx]

Well let's see. At the time the POTUS was in Booker there were reports that up to 11 planes had been hijacked. The elementary school is not far at all from a major airport, two if you count Tampa/St. Pete. So hijackers crafty enough to crash a plane into the Pentagon after the POTUS addresses the nation that we are under attack, could have certainly been assumed to be able to crash a plane into Booker.

The SS could not have taken any chances. Instead, schoolchildren are lined up behind Bush for his photo op to tell the whole world we are under attack. I suppose the kids felt real great about having to stand there, as opposed to being evacuated and returned to the safety of their own homes.

This is what makes me laugh about the Bush wanted to present a calm appearance bs. Those kids lives were at risk. If the military couldn't stop an attack on the Pentagon, they wouldn't have been able to stop an attack on Booker.

If your argument is that the reason Bush wasn't hustled out of Booker is because the SS knew he wasn't in any danger, you won't get any argument from me.


Oh boy its hard to believe truthers still think that Bush in the classroom is still a good argument for an inside job.

Its perfectly simple, if Bush planned 911 why are they also such morons so as to not have a plan to act in a competent manor and rush the president out ASAP?

Surely then the fact that they did nothing for such a long time is evidence that it wasnt an inside job.

Instead truthers think that the government are genius' so as to plan and orchestra 911, make silent explosives, to make a never before seen form of superthermite, fly a plane over the Pentagon without anyone noticing, pay off 10s of thousands of people and convince many more to lie including the FDNY, to fake phone calls, fake fake terrorist videos... etc.... but on 911 they decide to have Bush sit there looking guilty so that 8 years later truthers can say that this is evidence of an inside job.

That Redibis, is stupid logic. If they did all that they could at least rush him out.

[T.A.M.]

All you've got is semantics, quibbling over wording. In this instance you make the false assumption that Bush would have any ability to resist the SS, who operate on their own authority, regardless of if the POTUS resists.

DRG's point, and it's a valid one, is that not knowing how many planes were hijacked, the SS should never have left Bush in a public location, a location that was previously publicized.

All I have is semantics? DRG lives and dies on semantics...that is ALL he has. Out of what I provided, including the Richard Clarke Testimony (which I assume you feel is him lying) you pull this out? very weak.

The fact is, perhaps the SS should have moved him "somewhere", and perhaps they could have been more forceful when BUSH (As he says he did) resisted. Is this suspicious of knowing what was coming? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Yet this is what Grifter is suggesting, and you know it.

If the SS knew what was coming, then why bother asking Richard Clarke what to do with the POTUS...they would already know. See the paranoia through to its illogical conclusion, and you reach a dead end.


TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Well let's see. At the time the POTUS was in Booker there were reports that up to 11 planes had been hijacked. The elementary school is not far at all from a major airport, two if you count Tampa/St. Pete. So hijackers crafty enough to crash a plane into the Pentagon after the POTUS addresses the nation that we are under attack, could have certainly been assumed to be able to crash a plane into Booker.

The SS could not have taken any chances. Instead, schoolchildren are lined up behind Bush for his photo op to tell the whole world we are under attack. I suppose the kids felt real great about having to stand there, as opposed to being evacuated and returned to the safety of their own homes.

This is what makes me laugh about the Bush wanted to present a calm appearance bs. Those kids lives were at risk. If the military couldn't stop an attack on the Pentagon, they wouldn't have been able to stop an attack on Booker.

If your argument is that the reason Bush wasn't hustled out of Booker is because the SS knew he wasn't in any danger, you won't get any argument from me.

They knew he was in danger, but danger comes in degrees. They likely felt, at the time, that until a secure location was cleared and verified, that the present location, which was previous cleared, was the better option.

You and your infinite knowledge can doubt their decisions all you want...does not even insinuate (with any degree of sanity) let alone prove foreknowledge of the attacks (which is what nutty professor is suggesting).

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#25 Red;


25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

So this claim of lying comes from (like almost all of his claims) DRG's book "A New Pearl Harbour". If you go to the relevant section in the book, you quickly see that DRG's claim is based on THE SPECULATION of Barry Zwicker and Paul Thompson, and nothing more. There is no evidence that they knew, only Zwicker's opinion that because the SS has the "best communications equipment in the world" that within 1 minute of the crash, both the SS and Bush would have known.

He also tries to walk us down the false path that if the SS and the FAA had "open lines" between them after the first plane hit, that that meant that as the ATC etc...became aware of the hijackings, that instantly the SS would have known.

However, as we see in numerous accounts, ATC testimony, and tapes from that day, the hijackings were (A) not instantly known even by ATC, (B) this was not immediately tranmitted to FAA, and (C) that the movement of such info up the chain, and hence likely to the SS, may have been much slower then Griffin suggests.

Griffin's ACCUSATION that those in the presidential party knew of the multiple hijackings prior to arrival at Booker Elementary, but lied and said they did not is based SOLEY, and ONLY on SPECULATION OF OTHERS and PRESUMPTIONS not backed up by the facts of the day.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

#26 Red:


26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

An oldie for sure...but he wrote this list in 2006, so we will allow it.

To start, this issue WAS NOT OMITTED by the 9/11 commission. It was simply kept out of the final report, likely because of Ashcroft's explanation to them during testimony, of the reasons why it occurred.

However, some points:

1.It was via a threat assessment by the FBI and DOJ that he was warned.
2. Ashcroft was advised to not to use Commercial airlines for his government business due to a threat specific to him as Attorney General. He was advised to use USG aircraft instead.
3. Ashcroft continued to use commercial flights for his private use right up to 9/11. (he and his wife travelled commercial to Washington DC on September 3rd 2001)

So if the FBI and/or DOJ had foreknowledge, then,

1. Why did they only warn Ashcroft (the rest of Bush's cabinet continued to fly commercial, even for govt business).
2. Why did he need to stop 2 MONTHS before 9/11 (if they knew the attack was coming, why not just tell him to avoid commercial flights for September 2001)
3. Why did he only stop using commercial for govt business, but continue to privately fly commercial?

This canard has been WELL and THOROUGHLY debunked. Red, you should email Grifter and tell him to ammend his parrot speech so that this silly thing no longer appears.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

#26 Red:



An oldie for sure...but he wrote this list in 2006, so we will allow it.

To start, this issue WAS NOT OMITTED by the 9/11 commission. It was simply kept out of the final report, likely because of Ashcroft's explanation to them during testimony, of the reasons why it occurred.



Sorry buddy, but this is a Stundie.

So it was not omitted, it was just kept out. Thanks for setting us straight.

[DGM]

Sorry buddy, but this is a Stundie.

So it was not omitted, it was just kept out. Thanks for setting us straight.
RedIbis:
I think the "truthers" should launch an independent investigation of DRG. There seems to be a lot of "interesting anomalies" in his claims. Don't you agree?

[TruthersLie]

Well let's see. At the time the POTUS was in Booker there were reports that up to 11 planes had been hijacked. The elementary school is not far at all from a major airport, two if you count Tampa/St. Pete. So hijackers crafty enough to crash a plane into the Pentagon after the POTUS addresses the nation that we are under attack, could have certainly been assumed to be able to crash a plane into Booker.

The SS could not have taken any chances. Instead, schoolchildren are lined up behind Bush for his photo op to tell the whole world we are under attack. I suppose the kids felt real great about having to stand there, as opposed to being evacuated and returned to the safety of their own homes.

This is what makes me laugh about the Bush wanted to present a calm appearance bs. Those kids lives were at risk. If the military couldn't stop an attack on the Pentagon, they wouldn't have been able to stop an attack on Booker.

If your argument is that the reason Bush wasn't hustled out of Booker is because the SS knew he wasn't in any danger, you won't get any argument from me.

Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance noted.

Thanks for playing.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry buddy, but this is a Stundie.

So it was not omitted, it was just kept out. Thanks for setting us straight.

The 9/11 Commission (not the report) did not keep it out of the official record, they merely did not include it in the "made for the laymen" final report.

I accept your retraction of the stundie nod in advance.

TAM:)

edit:

here is a link to Ashcrofts TESTIMONY for the 9/11 commission.

http://www.nj.com/war/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/20040414_ashcroft.html


BEN-VENISTE: I agree with you, sir.

The problem was in the communication of information which did not reach those who might have made a difference.

Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.

And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.

At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.

I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.

The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.

These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.

BEN-VENISTE: I'm pleased to have been able to give you the opportunity to clarify that issue for all who have written to this commission and communicated in other ways about their questions about that, sir.

[funk de fino]

Sorry buddy, but this is a Stundie.

So it was not omitted, it was just kept out. Thanks for setting us straight.

Thanks for proving you are reading impaired. Griffin is a horrible liar. Edited for civility.

[T.A.M.]

#26 is an interesting one Red,


27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

Now I have been reading the interviews this guy gave shortly after 9/11. He is either a liar, or he did have information and it was ignored. I plead ignorance on even hearing about him, so I will let others who are more read on him (Brainster? JamesB? anyone else) answer whether there is any reason to trust or distrust his claims...

Here is one such claim Schippers' makes,


Q: David, you are a hero to a lot of people for what happened and what didn't happen in the impeachment proceedings. It is reasonable to assume that you still have some connections with Congress. Have you contacted any of the Congress critters to talk about this?

A: Yes, I have. The Jayna Davis material and the Oklahoma City bombing are just a part of the stuff I've got. I have information indicating there was going to be a massive attack in lower Manhattan. I couldn't get anybody to listen to me.

Q: When was that?

A: About a month-and-a-half before Sept. 11. The original thing that I heard – and you might ask Mr. Bodansky about that – Mr. Bodansky talked to Jayna Davis. He was one of the people behind the warning that came out Feb. 19, 1995, and this was the warning that I saw: that there was going to be an attack on the United States by bin Laden's people, that the original target – and this is the way it reads – the original target was supposed to be the White House and the Capitol building, and they were going to use commercial airliners as bombs.

Full Interview here (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25008)

TAM:)

[Lenbrazil]

So RedIbis I imagine you think cellphones don't work at altitude so how would any theoretical hijackers have known if Bush Jr. was still there or not? Other than Clarke what evidence is there up to 11 planes were suspected of being hijacked? Only 77 was hijacked at the time but this was not known at the time.Were any of the mythical flights anywhere near Sarasota or even in Fla?

And as you've already been asked if GWB knew beforehand why didn't they script him acting presidential instead of like a clueless moron to be ridiculed by Leslie Nielsen?

Do you think his SS detail was "in on it"? Why would "they" risk the operation by telling people who did NOT need to know?

Do you know of any people with backgrounds in personel protection who back your suspicions?

[Edx]

LOL @ Redibis.

[MikeW]

Other than Clarke what evidence is there up to 11 planes were suspected of being hijacked?
The "11" figure is accurate, but it didn't reach that number until just after Bush left Booker, I believe. The FAA audio tapes show they weren't asking people to send in reports of odd behaviour (no comms etc) until something like 9:20 (I'm going from memory so there's roughly a +/- 5 minute error there).

[T.A.M.]

The "11" figure is accurate, but it didn't reach that number until just after Bush left Booker, I believe. The FAA audio tapes show they weren't asking people to send in reports of odd behaviour (no comms etc) until something like 9:20 (I'm going from memory so there's roughly a +/- 5 minute error there).

MikeW;

You have any info on this David Schippers Character? Is his testimony pure lies (possible) or gross exaggerations of what he was actually told (I suspect)? Any info on him?

TAM:)

[Obviousman]

So it's agreed that what Gage said was a lie when he claimed 95% of the world's architects agreed with them?

[gumboot]

Going back to the ATCC computer game for a moment (sorry), there's two points that I think address it sufficiently without requiring the game/simulator question to be answered.

1) The protocols and actions in question are pertaining to the USAF, but the software in question pertains to the FAA. Therefore, the software, regardless of its status or accuracy, is irrelevant.

2) FAA standing orders at the time of 9/11 contradict Griffin's claim. Even assuming this was an official training simulator for the FAA, and even assuming the manual said what Griffin claims it says (of course neither of these is true), standing orders always take precedence over what was taught in training. This is true of any field I can think of, be you a soldier, a fireman, a cleaner, or a company manager.

I've explained the logic behind the USSS staying put many times. Firstly, POTUS is always safer in a controlled environment than in an uncontrolled environment. Secondly, a great deal or preparation is required to establish a controlled environment.

By removing Bush from the school they would have been forced to put him into an uncontrolled environment, thus putting him at grave risk unnecessarily.

It's worth noting Bush only moved to Air Force One once the route from the school to the airport was appropriately secured by the USSS.

[JihadJane]

Oh boy its hard to believe truthers still think that Bush in the classroom is still a good argument for an inside job.

Its perfectly simple, if Bush planned 911 why are they also such morons so as to not have a plan to act in a competent manor and rush the president out ASAP?

Surely then the fact that they did nothing for such a long time is evidence that it wasnt an inside job.

Instead truthers think that the government are genius' so as to plan and orchestra 911, make silent explosives, to make a never before seen form of superthermite, fly a plane over the Pentagon without anyone noticing, pay off 10s of thousands of people and convince many more to lie including the FDNY, to fake phone calls, fake fake terrorist videos... etc.... but on 911 they decide to have Bush sit there looking guilty so that 8 years later truthers can say that this is evidence of an inside job.

That Redibis, is stupid logic. If they did all that they could at least rush him out.

I love these do-it-yourself, mix'n'match twoofie salads.

[MikeW]

MikeW;

You have any info on this David Schippers Character? Is his testimony pure lies (possible) or gross exaggerations of what he was actually told (I suspect)? Any info on him?
I'm not sure.

On the one hand, he's a lawyer, apparently did some work for Judicial Watch, & was a major figure in the Clinton investigations.

But on the other, why would any serious person with a real and significant story to tell decide that the Alex Jones show is a good place to take it?

There's also a lack of detail to what he says, that makes me suspicious. And why no follow-up? Doubtless it'll be argued that he was "leaned on" to "shut up about it", but Schippers doesn't seem to me like the type of guy to be quiet. My preferred guess would be the same as yours, I think - the Alex Jones articles and transcripts represent an exaggeration of what he was actually told, and the reality is much less interesting.

[tuc0]

I love these do-it-yourself, mix'n'match twoofie salads.
So do we. That's why we keep laughing at the tortured illogic.

[RedIbis]

If they did all that they could at least rush him out.

Then they would have missed a great photo op.

[dtugg]

Got anything to say about your hero using a computer game manual as a reference, Red?

[twinstead]

Then they would have missed a great photo op.

Oh, so his sitting there looking like a moron is only suspicious to non sheep like you; everybody else was just enjoying the photo op?

[Lenbrazil]

So it's agreed that what Gage said was a lie when he claimed 95% of the world's architects agreed with them?

Ithinkwhat he actually says is that 95% of the architects who see his presentations agree with him but that's not very impressive because

1) IIRC he says about 70-80% agreed with him from the get go, I suspect the real number is higher.

2) Most of the rest presumably have doubts

3)they'd just seen a biased presentation

4) many people give in to peer pressure and seeing many people around them raising their hands probably causes some to feign agreement.

A fairer test would be to gather a randomly selected group of architects (and/or better yet SE's) show them the Gage -Robert's debate and have them vote secretly