PDA

View Full Version : Why I despise the Truthers


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9

johnny karate
15th August 2007, 06:07 PM
This sort of thing happens, nothing difficult to understand there - end of story. Please provide an example or kindly retract your assertion.


No. It's NOT my theory - it's YOUR assertion. I have asserted nothing. CTers in this thread have made the assertion that 1) The WTC was brought down with CD and 2) the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD had no knowledge or involvement. I have merely requested that any of them describe a scenario in which this is possible. So far, none have.


If there was a CD at WTC7, there was a CD, period.As Par has already succinctly put it: Petitio Principii. In other words, you're assuming something that hasn't even been remotely close to being proven. Besides, whether or not you or any other CTer believes that WTC7 was brought down by CD is irrelevant to the request I have made. Your opinions on whether or not a CD took place are inconsequential to this discussion. What I would like to know is if a CD did take place, how was it done without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD?

Anyone?

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 06:08 PM
BS, and you know it. If she got the word from the 4th hand that the FDNY was going to bring building seven down, than all the hands prior to that had to AT LEAST know that much, yet none of those hands have admitted this, so they are covering it up...if you believe her story.

TAM:)

What do I know? Only what she's supposed to have said...
make your own mind up.

All I'm saying is she seems to be reasonably specific in what she said...
I believe there is some other statements or at least anecdotal evidence of FD prior warning.
As I said earlier, in would be best to interview these people to verify who said what and when.
I repeat what I said earlier, I think it's pretty ludicrous to suggest that any of the FF are accessories before the fact.

NYCEMT86
15th August 2007, 06:09 PM
You were 16 on 9/11.

You've really offered up no evidence that you are an EMT but since you're not claiming to have been at GZ on 9/11 I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I apologize for saying you are a 'fake' EMT.

I would highly recommend instead of wasting your time on Alex Jones and the Watson brothers that you google "FDNY Oral Histories" and read through them all. Especially if you really want to be FDNY someday.

The Truth Movement is not the enemy of 9/11 Heroes. In fact, it seems to be only the Truth Movement that cares about 9/11 Heroes. We are the side trying to expose the 'cough' the Bush Administration denies exist. We were the ones who sided with the FDNY when they were told they weren't allowed to carry on the rescue efforts and had to leave the fallen in that pile so the evidence could be shipped off and destroyed quickly.

You're still young dude. You gotta a lot of learning to do. Hear me now and believe me later. I hope it works out for you.

peace


I have read most of the oral histories and have talked to several firefighters and EMTs who were there as well. The one person I have been in contact with mainly is Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn, he wrote a lot of information on building collapses prior to 9/11 and even did a paper on the WTC which included a comparison of the WTC and the Empire State Building.

I am currently an FDNY EMT and I took the promotional exam in January to become a Firefighter.

A lot of people sided with the Firefighters when they were pulled off the pile. So you weren't the only ones. You aren't the only ones trying to help the sick rescue workers either.

Just because I am young doesn't mean I don't know anything.

I am a graduate from the NYS Fire Academy and was a volley firefighter while I was in the academy, thats how I got my EMT certification. I have learned a lot especially from the FDNY instructors who came up to the Academy and did a whole lecture on 9/11 and terrorism.

It's funny though, you guys claim Controlled Demolition. Yet, the Firefighters haven't rallied together to say it was an inside job. Most (and I am not saying all) Firefighter I have talked too, call ************ on that whole theory.


It wasn't just Alex Jones. Jason Bermas said they were involved because they were paid off, when he retracted his statement he said they were threatened. Most twoofers (not putting words in your mouth) believe that the whole "pull it" statement implicates the FDNY as accessories.

The article Alex Jones and Watson brothers shows their true colors.

I don't believe in the truth movement at all. They haven't given me one piece of factual evidence to prove it was an inside job. Just because someone used the word "explosion" to describe a sound doesn't mean EXPLOSIVES. A lot of firefighters even go on to say "The sound was the building collapsing".

I do have a lot to learn, but its not going to be taught to me by the Truth Movement.

If you want proof that I am an EMT? Ask me any medical question you want, that isn't paramedic ordinated, because that is outside my scope of practice.

Par
15th August 2007, 06:10 PM
Show me where I said the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD carried out a controlled demolition.



So, you don't believe that the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD had any role in any controlled demolition?


Sorry this doesn't apply, I said "if there was a CD, there was a CD, period"

no 'Petitio Principii' there now is there? :)


Well, it’s either that or a tautology. So, you’re either wrong or daft. You can choose.

T.A.M.
15th August 2007, 06:14 PM
What do I know? Only what she's supposed to have said...
make your own mind up.

All I'm saying is she seems to be reasonably specific in what she said...
I believe there is some other statements or at least anecdotal evidence of FD prior warning.
As I said earlier, in would be best to interview these people to verify who said what and when.
I repeat what I said earlier, I think it's pretty ludicrous to suggest that any of the FF are accessories before the fact.

I don't want to belabor this point to death, but you have just said that you feel she was pretty specific. If you feel this way, than you can't have it both ways. If you feel she is specific, than that goes for her statement that the FDNY told her THEY were going to BRING WTC7 DOWN. This implicates, directly, people within the FDNY. So, if you believe in the last comment you made, than you must believe her testimony is ludicrous, as that is exactly what her testimony implies...that the FF are accessories before the fact.

TAM:)

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 06:18 PM
As Par has already succinctly put it: Petitio Principii. In other words, you're assuming something that hasn't even been remotely close to being proven.

Can't you see the word'if' in my statement? you know, the statement described as 'Petitio Principi'?

" if there was a CD, there was a CD, period"

some of you guy gets things the wrong way around.
e.g." there can't have been a CD, because you don't know how it was done" -- BRILIANT :confused:

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 06:28 PM
If you feel she is specific, than that goes for her statement that the FDNY told her THEY were going to BRING WTC7 DOWN. This implicates, directly, people within the FDNY.
TAM:)

As I said, people who simply relay a message are not necessarily implicated.
If what she said is true, it would appears that the fire department got a warning or tipoff - call it what you want- who knows? Now, as to the question 'at what level?' Your guess is as good as mine.
Like I said before, all this is 'hypothetical' and as such doesn't implicate anyone, except hypothetically of course.

edit: so you could say the 'truthers' are hypothetically [ put here whatever you want]

T.A.M.
15th August 2007, 06:31 PM
Not acceptable.

If Fire Chief X says to Fire Captain Y "We are going to have to bring WTC7 down", and then Fire Captain Y tells this to Fireman Z, who then relays this to Indira, are you telling me that none of them are culpable for relaying this, then allowing it to be covered up as "it came down due to damage", when in fact they relayed a message that it was going to be brought down intentionally?

There is no wiggle room on this issue. I hate to belabor it, but its true.

TAM:)

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 06:34 PM
So, you don't believe that the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD had any role in any controlled demolition?





Well, it’s either that or a tautology. So, you’re either wrong or daft. You can choose.

Well, sometimes one has to say 'daft' things to address absurdities :)

In other word, I said "if it happened , then it happened, period." Some are saying 'it can't have happened because you don't know how it would be done'.

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 06:45 PM
Not acceptable.

If Fire Chief X says to Fire Captain Y "We are going to have to bring WTC7 down", and then Fire Captain Y tells this to Fireman Z, who then relays this to Indira, are you telling me that none of them are culpable for relaying this, then allowing it to be covered up as "it came down due to damage", when in fact they relayed a message that it was going to be brought down intentionally?

There is no wiggle room on this issue. I hate to belabor it, but its true.

TAM:)

If what you say here applies, i.e. Fire Chief X says to Fire Captain Y "We are going to have to bring WTC7 down", then of course that would implicate those people.
But that scenario is not necessary for the CD to be a reality.

You have to think 'pre-positioned incendiaries/explosives' a la WTC1 & 2
Therefor, no complicity of the FDNY etc.

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 06:51 PM
Not acceptable.

in fact they relayed a message that it was going to be brought down intentionally?



TAM:)

They would be likely to be considered 'accessory after the fact'
if they were later deemed to have understood that the forewarning was evidence of a criminal act, and didn't later report it.

N.B. This is all hypothetical :)

T.A.M.
15th August 2007, 06:52 PM
We are not talking WTC1/2, we are talking WTC7. So are you admitting that if she was handed down a message that ended up conveying to her that the FDNY were going to have to bring down WTC7, then those who relayed the message were complicit, and part of the cover up, since the official story is that it came down from damage and fire?

See, like I said, it comes down to whether you believe what she said literally, you believe her specifics, or you do not, and realize it was more likely something along the lines of,

"With the way that building is looking, we might have to bring it down, before it comes down on its own."

TAM:)

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 07:12 PM
...if she was handed down a message that ended up conveying to her that the FDNY were going to have to bring down WTC7, then those who relayed the message were complicit, and part of the cover up, since the official story is that it came down from damage and fire?
<snip>

"With the way that building is looking, we might have to bring it down, before it comes down on its own."

TAM:)

None of these would make sense because:
1) It's very, very questionable they could bring it down i.e. insufficient time to 'rig' it...?
2) Absolutely no reason to try and cover it up afterwards

johnny karate
15th August 2007, 07:19 PM
If what you say here applies, i.e. Fire Chief X says to Fire Captain Y "We are going to have to bring WTC7 down", then of course that would implicate those people. But that scenario is not necessary for the CD to be a reality. Then please describe a scenario in which CD is possible without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY, and the PAPD.

You have to think 'pre-positioned incendiaries/explosives' a la WTC1 & 2 Therefor, no complicity of the FDNY etc. And yet none of these explosives, or the necessary equipment that would accompany them, was noticed by anyone in the above mentioned agencies, which means either A) There were in fact no explosives, B) the members of those agencies did witness evidence for a CD, but have chosen not to disclose this fact (thus making them complicit after the fact), or C) some implausible scenario that no one in the CT movement can seem to articulate. Which do you suppose it is?

In other word, I said "if it happened , then it happened, period." Some are saying 'it can't have happened because you don't know how it would be done'. I am not making any claims about the veracity of the CD Theory based on your and every other CTers complete and total inability to explain how it was done. I am simply looking for one of you to either explain how it was done without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY and PAPD or at least have the courage of your convictions to admit you are implying their guilt with your theories.

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 07:36 PM
I am not making any claims about the veracity of the CD Theory based on your and every other CTers complete and total inability to explain how it was done. I am simply looking for one of you to either explain how it was done without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY and PAPD or at least have the courage of your convictions to admit you are implying their guilt with your theories.

First, let me make it clear: I am not what you guys call a 'truther', rather more of a 'skeptic'.
I don't have any stubborn, boneheaded, fixed beliefs one way or any other way. Any 'theories' I talk about are exactly that - theories, and hypothetical.

With regard to WTC7, the only CD theory that would seem to make any sense, would be pre-placed incendiary/explosive charges -- with previously set timers -- as part of the plan to totally destroy the WTC complex.

One theory would be: 4 hi-jacked planes by AK operatives, one plane for each building WTC1, WTC2. WTC7, plus one for Pentagon.
Pre-placed charges with timers in buildings #1, #2 and #7. [ pretext: various maintainence etc. work? ]
The goal would be to get maximum effect and insure that the entire WTC was completely flattened.
The planes would be absolutely necessary, to put an unambiguous 'terrorist' stamp on the operation, explosives were also necessary to ensure total collapse of the towers...
The plane for building WTC7 didn't come. [ flight#93? ]

The FFNY would have known nothing about anything, until someone told them "it might be a good idea to get everybody away from #7"

Again this is just hypothesis.

T.A.M.
15th August 2007, 07:36 PM
None of these would make sense because:
1) It's very, very questionable they could bring it down i.e. insufficient time to 'rig' it...?
2) Absolutely no reason to try and cover it up afterwards

well if that is your view of it, than her testimony is essentially useless with regards to a viable suggestion of CD and the appropirate perps...

I agree, with the first part...that her testimony is useless.

TAM:)

TerryUK
15th August 2007, 07:45 PM
well if that is your view of it, than her testimony is essentially useless with regards to a viable suggestion of CD and the appropirate perps...

I agree, with the first part...that her testimony is useless.

TAM:)
Well, if there was a CD, her 'testimony' might indicate a tipoff of some sort

BeAChooser
15th August 2007, 07:53 PM
Then please describe a scenario in which CD is possible without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY, and the PAPD.

Not to mention virtually the entire engineering, demolition and physics community. :p

Alt+F4
15th August 2007, 08:18 PM
The Truth Movement is not the enemy of 9/11 Heroes. In fact, it seems to be only the Truth Movement that cares about 9/11 Heroes

Sorry but you're wrong. My brother-in-law is a 20 year FDNY vet who was there on 9/11 (thank God unhurt) and worked the pile for the next six months. He and his brother firefighters hate the "truth" movement. Don't believe me? Come to any FDNY firehouse in the five boros and ask the men there what they think about 9/11 "truth".

Regnad Kcin
15th August 2007, 08:25 PM
As for my writing skills I'm not really concerned what anybody, especially on this forum, thinks. My profs loved me enough too [sic] where I never got anything accept [sic] an A on every paper and ever [sic] written test I took in College [sic]. As I only write part time because writing doesn't pay the bills, I'll remember too return and gloat once I'm officially published.More than half the governments [sic] original suspects who were supposedly on the plain [sic] and thought too [sic] be dead have been found alive and well. There was another man who had his passport stolen. There [sic] entire investigation into the day of 911 [sic] was a joke. I'm not doubting if somebody was brought into a court of law and tried for 911 [sic] he'd be found guilty especially if he was from the middle east [sic]. Provide a perfect constitutional court setting and allow Assama [sic] too [sic] buy them a top notch lawyer, Isn't [sic] anyway [sic] there could be a conviction.Phantom [sic] i'm [sic] going too [sic] take your word for it. Considering the information I'd Ple [sic] [sic] Bargin [sic] [sic].Once again I could [sic] care less of [sic] your opinion. It matters much more what my Profs [sic] thought as they are professionals in there [sic] fields. The audience I'm writing for isn't exactly a close [sic] minded [sic] group. You'd be surprised [sic] the majority [sic] meaning the average American [sic] is going too love my stuff. Knowing what too [sic] write too [sic] attract the majority of readers is the key too [sic] success when writing.Just a sampling.

OldSchool, you claiming to be a writer is like those who say they're "truth" seekers in regard to 9/11. The evidence at hand puts the lie to the claim.

Corsair 115
15th August 2007, 08:29 PM
This thread has grown mightily in my absence, so please forgive me for picking this quote from some pages back for comment, I simply had to reply to it...

It's our job as Americans to demand the truth not the half truth or excuses to pacify us.Would you mind telling me why the media and governments of other nations seem to be so silent on this issue of a conspiracy surrounding 9/11? Citizens of a number of other countries were killed on 9/11 (24 from my country, Canada, to cite one example).

If the evidence is as compelling of U.S. government complicity in 9/11 as some CTers claim, then why are those other nations' media and government not performing their own investigations and registering official governmental protests? Why do they remain quiet? What possible motive could they have for not pursuing the matter?

johnny karate
15th August 2007, 08:52 PM
With regard to WTC7, the only CD theory that would seem to make any sense, would be pre-placed incendiary/explosive charges -- with previously set timers -- as part of the plan to totally destroy the WTC complex.

One theory would be: 4 hi-jacked planes by AK operatives, one plane for each building WTC1, WTC2. WTC7, plus one for Pentagon.
Pre-placed charges with timers in buildings #1, #2 and #7. [ pretext: various maintainence etc. work? ]
The goal would be to get maximum effect and insure that the entire WTC was completely flattened.
The planes would be absolutely necessary, to put an unambiguous 'terrorist' stamp on the operation, explosives were also necessary to ensure total collapse of the towers...
The plane for building WTC7 didn't come. [ flight#93? ]

The FFNY would have known nothing about anything, until someone told them "it might be a good idea to get everybody away from #7"

Again this is just hypothesis.The problem with your hypothessis is it fails to meet the criteria of my request. No where in it to you explain how this all happened right under the noses of the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD without anyone in those agencies noticing anything suspicious, either before or after the fact. Since common sense dictates that this is highly unlikely, your hypothesis implicates members of these agencies at the very least in being complicit by concealing evidence.

Regnad Kcin
15th August 2007, 09:38 PM
I would imagine...Therein lies your problem.

ZENSMACK89
15th August 2007, 10:54 PM
This thread has grown mightily in my absence, so please forgive me for picking this quote from some pages back for comment, I simply had to reply to it...

Would you mind telling me why the media and governments of other nations seem to be so silent on this issue of a conspiracy surrounding 9/11? Citizens of a number of other countries were killed on 9/11 (24 from my country, Canada, to cite one example).

If the evidence is as compelling of U.S. government complicity in 9/11 as some CTers claim, then why are those other nations' media and government not performing their own investigations and registering official governmental protests? Why do they remain quiet? What possible motive could they have for not pursuing the matter?
I feel because of a lack of a real investigation that uncovers real implications and evidence the media hasn't had much to report. I wouldn't say that it's been totally ignored though. When the 9-11 truth movement had their symposium in LA it was covered by CSPAN and received some of the highest ratings they've ever had.

Fox News is always looking to get someone from the truth movement on and make them look like they’re crazy or a traitor. Why do they bother?

Also if you look at the present administration 9-11 isn't the only they've been able to avoid as far as public scrutiny and any real accountability. They played hardball with the press from the get go with the leaking false stories and refusing press passes for the white house press conferences and even posing someone as a reporter to ask prepared questions that the president would give a prepared answer to. They’re all about secrecy.

Even so there must be something to this movement or so many wouldn't be trying to discredit it with things like the "counter misinformation team" and articles in magazines that can be linked right back to the current administration. If it's all just nonsense why does anyone care if someone believes it? Would they get that mad at someone who believes in Big Foot or the loch ness monster? If I believe 9-11 was a conspiracy and you know for a fact its nonsense then what’s it matter what I believe? Why do you care?

Corsair 115
15th August 2007, 11:32 PM
I feel because of a lack of a real investigation that uncovers real implications and evidence the media hasn't had much to report. I wouldn't say that it's been totally ignored though. When the 9-11 truth movement had their symposium in LA it was covered by CSPAN and received some of the highest ratings they've ever had. None of which addresses my question about the media and governments of other nations. Again, why do they acquiesce?

Also if you look at the present administration 9-11 isn't the only they've been able to avoid as far as public scrutiny and any real accountability. They played hardball with the press from the get go with the leaking false stories and refusing press passes for the white house press conferences and even posing someone as a reporter to ask prepared questions that the president would give a prepared answer to. They’re all about secrecy. See above.

Even so there must be something to this movement or so many wouldn't be trying to discredit it with things like the "counter misinformation team" and articles in magazines that can be linked right back to the current administration. See above.

If I believe 9-11 was a conspiracy and you know for a fact its nonsense then what’s it matter what I believe? Why do you care?Because it's a shame to see someone believing in foolishness. It's like that old slogan from years ago - "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." Perhaps by engaging that mind it may be possible for it to be led away from wasting its efforts on foolishness, especially foolishness that involves serious matters.

leftysergeant
15th August 2007, 11:35 PM
You were 16 on 9/11.

You've really offered up no evidence that you are an EMT but since you're not claiming to have been at GZ on 9/11 I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I apologize for saying you are a 'fake' EMT.

And I will give no quarter to anyone who would make such an insulting, condescending remark to someone who is obviously better-schooled in fire science and emergency services than any of the ranting twoofers who plague the web.

You insult all of the fire fighters who post to this site. (That includes me.)

I would highly recommend instead of wasting your time on Alex Jones and the Watson brothers that you google "FDNY Oral Histories" and read through them all. Especially if you really want to be FDNY someday.

Anyone who thinks that A. Jones will even direct you to a useful comment supportive of his position is lacking in reasoning capacity.

Indira Singh may have been told that "they are about to blow WTC 7," but that may also have just been her interpretation of what they told her. Or the person who told her that may have been told at third or fouth hand that the collapse was immenent. It is not all that likely, given the worthless junk that Rudy gave them for radios, that not everyone in the department was aware how badly the building was damaged.

Have you ever played Silent Post? One person tells another a simple fact, and the message is passed down in secret through as many people as are available. You send in a lion and an aardvark comes out of the last person's mouth. That is what happened to communications about what was going to happen to WTC 7.

As for the accounts of some of the fire fighters and EMTs. not all of them are properly quoted by twoofers. Some of them clearly did not see all of what happened. The Naudet Brothers film shows us why. The brother inside the tower was not aware that the other tower had collapsed until he was outside, eating the dust of the tower he had just left.

If you want to see a good example of how worthless eyewitness testimony relative to a catastrophicevent can be, there is one account that a lot of twoofers like to dredge up taken from an interview with an EMT named Ondrovic. She is clearly suffering from PTSD, and is, at the same time, the strongest corroboration of CT, if she is to be believed.

Sorry, but her mental state makes her testimony worthless, for most purposes. She broke down and ran. She deserves disability benefits, for sure, but I do not want her on another disaster site.

We were the ones who sided with the FDNY when they were told they weren't allowed to carry on the rescue efforts and had to leave the fallen in that pile so the evidence could be shipped off and destroyed quickly.

Shipped off immediately? No way. There was quite an extensive examination of most of it before it was released, looking for both evidence and body parts, at Fresh Kills on Staten Island.

You're still young dude. You gotta a lot of learning to do. Hear me now and believe me later. I hope it works out for you.

Twoofers need to grow up. I know 10-year-olds more mature than the kids on most twoofer sites.

R.Mackey
15th August 2007, 11:36 PM
Even so there must be something to this movement or so many wouldn't be trying to discredit it with things like the "counter misinformation team" and articles in magazines that can be linked right back to the current administration. If it's all just nonsense why does anyone care if someone believes it? Would they get that mad at someone who believes in Big Foot or the loch ness monster? If I believe 9-11 was a conspiracy and you know for a fact its nonsense then what’s it matter what I believe? Why do you care?

You're kidding, right?

The shiny happy faces of the "Truth Movement" have slandered and harassed hundreds of people, and dishonored the living and the dead. Just a few examples:


Jason Bermas accused the FDNY of being "in on it," then modified his statement to say that he thinks they were "threatened" to keep their mouths shut
Hundreds of black-clad miscreants paraded outside Larry Silverstein's office, haranguing him with bullhorns and accusations of complicity
Jim Fetzer has repeatedly stated that "there is a special place in hell" for all engineers and architects who defend the "official conspiracy theory"
Kevin Barrett recently issued thinly veiled threats to the media for not reporting "the Truth"
Val McClatchey and Lloyde England are two individuals harassed online and in print as being "part of the coverup." Their crimes were, respectively, taking a photograph and being hit by a light pole.
Just today I was accused of being a "Nationalist" and a "Nazi" for pointing out to a Truther that the FDR evidence of UA93 proves it wasn't hit by an air-to-air missile


Get the picture? We oppose your Movement because your Movement is nothing but vindictive rabble. Our existence has nothing to do with "cointelpro" and it for damn sure doesn't mean that you guys are right. What you are witnessing is nothing more than an expression of human decency. If you have trouble recognizing that, then you have serious problems.

Besides, people here do oppose Bigfooters and Loch Ness fantasists. Ignorance is appalling in all of its forms. Morons are holding back the human race. Don't be one of them.

uk_dave
16th August 2007, 03:42 AM
Let's say an executive in some corporation or other is running a 'scam', ripping off clients or whatever.
All the various paperwork, correspondance etc. goes through the office and is printed/proccessed/handled/shipped or whatever, by many people in the office.
You say that by claiming a 'scam' [crime] has been commited, this mean all those people are implicated?


What if the scam is suspected but covered up and all of the people in that office who now know about the suspicions about the scam don't come forward with the evidence they have? Then they're implicated after the fact, yes?

'Truthers' need to drop this tortured attempt to view the events of 911 in complete isolation, as if time stopped on that day and that each and every person who might have unknowingly been part of the 'conspiracy' has completely forgotten about what happened before and during the attacks.

Even if they are unaware at the time (let's say a maintenance crew is told to lay some damaged lightpoles near the road outside of the pentagon on the night of 9/10) after the events of the day, aren't they going to make some connections between what they were asked/ordered to do/supply and the actual attacks which took place? Don't the maintenance crew scratch their chins and say "Hmmmm funny, we put those broken poles there, but now people are saying they were knocked over by a plane."?

Where are all these people who prepped the 'false flag' attack in complete innocence but who now should be talking to the 'truther' amateur investigators, the world's media, the law enforcement agencies, amnesty international etc etc about the orders/instructions they received which now appear strange in the light of the attacks?

The conspiracy is impossibly vast and those that took part must either be ideologically committed to it or too stupid to see their own part in it. Or cowards, which of course is the 'truthers' last line of defence when called out on this. 'Truthers' aren't cowards though (well, they start out a bit nervy when they realise they are going to have to identify themselves if they're going to have any .... acclaim for their work, but that soon goes away when they discover no one is actually out to get them), they would definately come forward if they discovered they had been involved..... wouldn't they?

Belz...
16th August 2007, 04:23 AM
I admittedly don't know much about physics, but it seems to me that in order to protect the explosives enough from being flat-out destroyed by the plane you'd have to completely encapsulate them in the hardest, strongest material on earth (anyone know the name of a good jeweler?)

Of course, you know that diamonds, if that's what you're thinking about, isn't the strongest material on earth. It's hard, but weak as hell.

Belz...
16th August 2007, 04:35 AM
Reality can't be defined.

Of course it can. Reality is consistent across the world, across the universe and from one person to the next. Once we discovered how to test various claims and hypotheses, everything suddenly became consistent.

If reality couldn't be defined, the same things wouldn't hold true for different people, but they do.

Although the human mind is similar there are slight variations for each individual.

In belief, yes.

Albert Einstein would be the perfect example. Although he was very strange by standards of every day life, his genius hasn't been matched even too present day.

How can you say that ? By what standards do you determine one's genius ?

"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. This is a war on personal Freedom, Okay? Keep that in mind at all times."

That's his opinion, but as usual, reality is immune to opinion.

Belz...
16th August 2007, 04:44 AM
Someone from a gov. agency phone FD chief " Hi Jim, [Tom ,whatever] we have word that the #7 is compromised, so pull everyone back etc.. no details... national security...

Not only are you speculating, here, but your theory doesn't make a bit of sense. If 7 WTC was compromised, and was going to collapse anyway, it'd be useless to risk so much just to destroy it sooner.

And if there WERE important documents in it, as so far no one has shown, the government could've demanded exlusive access to its rubble, no ?

Don't you know the difference between evidence and hypothesis?

All investigation involve hypothesis. Also when defending against a prosecution in a court, hypothesis are presented to demonstrate innocence for example.

A hypothesis is pretty much useless in court unless it's supported by evidence.

If a corporation sends a directive to one branch of it's operation, the recipient, who may be another executive or management employee does not necessarily know the whole story... he then passes on the essential to his team manager, and at the end of the chain - a lady who works in 'customer relations' finds her self telling a complaining cusomer " I'm sorry I only work here, and I'm following instructions" whatever...

Still, investigators would be able to follow that trail back to its source. So far, zilch.

I feel that what she says is probably just too specific to shrug one's shoulders...

Please. People are usually very specific about their memory, even when they don't remember things precisely. Observe people around you, maybe even yourself, and you'll notice that.

If there was a CD at WTC7, there was a CD, period.

Yeah. That's a tautology. Can you SHOW that there was a CD ?

This is all hypothetical

No **** ?

Belz...
16th August 2007, 04:46 AM
The plains hit at the top and nobody is yet too explain how the Steel Melted.

That's because the steel didn't melt. But then, if you had done ANY amount of research at all on this subject, you'd know this.

If the planes had hit the bottom floor you might be making some sense.

Why ?

Belz...
16th August 2007, 04:48 AM
Why do you care?

Because you're spewing your nonsense all over the internet, and somebody must put some reality into this.

Belz...
16th August 2007, 04:50 AM
Even so there must be something to this movement or so many wouldn't be trying to discredit it with things like the "counter misinformation team" and articles in magazines

That doesn't make a bit of sense.

sts60
16th August 2007, 06:12 AM
TerryUK: The Truth Movement is not the enemy of 9/11 Heroes.

Yes, it is, because it attempts to tie their sacrifice to an ugly mass of ignorance, paranoia, half-truths, and outright lies.

The FFNY would have known nothing about anything, until someone told them "it might be a good idea to get everybody away from #7"

Didn't you just get through lecturing NYCEMT86 about reading the oral histories (he had, and unlike you had actually talked with FDNY personnel who had been on the scene)? How did you miss the discussion of observed collapse indicators well before the building came down? I'm a volunteer firefighter with training in building construction and collapse; the indicators they reported were unambiguous, and I think it's just enormously funny that you propose that "someone told them 'it might be a good idea to get everybody away from #7'" as the basis for that decision.

But I'll tell you what. Seeing as how you're such a good buddy to the firefighters, please go to any FDNY firehouse and tell them all about your brilliant theory. Or you can come down to my area and talk to some of the FFs who responded to the Pentagon.

Just let me know ahead of time so I can watch, OK?

Regnad Kcin
16th August 2007, 08:05 AM
We oppose your Movement because your Movement is nothing but vindictive rabble. Our existence has nothing to do with "cointelpro" and it for damn sure doesn't mean that you guys are right. What you are witnessing is nothing more than an expression of human decency. If you have trouble recognizing that, then you have serious problems.

Besides, people here do oppose Bigfooters and Loch Ness fantasists. Ignorance is appalling in all of its forms. Morons are holding back the human race. Don't be one of them.Bravo!

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 09:04 AM
You're kidding, right?

That would be a NO.

The shiny happy faces of the "Truth Movement" have slandered and harassed hundreds of people, and dishonored the living and the dead. Just a few examples:

So we get back to the original topic Why I despise the Truthers. How is it you get to declare what dishonors the living and the dead on 9-11? Just another bare assertion proven ridiculous by the very families of the living and the dead who fight for a little truth. Do they deserve it? What is it you do here to contribute to people being held accountable for what happened on 9-11?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMkkA16mNJk

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

Jason Bermas accused the FDNY of being "in on it," then modified his statement to say that he thinks they were "threatened" to keep their mouths shut

Jason Bermas isn’t the only one claiming pressure on first responders to keep their mouths shut. If a first responder, or any other hero from 9-11 makes the same claim that they feel there’s more to 9-11 then the official version is letting on to you despise them equally? Do you dishonor them?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/34911.htm


Hundreds of black-clad miscreants paraded outside Larry Silverstein's office, haranguing him with bullhorns and accusations of complicity

No sympathy for Larry Silverstein, the Airlines, or anyone else who pointed their finger with one hand and held the other one out for a payout out before the smoke even cleared. I thought you were all concerned about honor? I’m sorry but I find nothing honorable about Silverstein.

Jim Fetzer has repeatedly stated that "there is a special place in hell" for all engineers and architects who defend the "official conspiracy theory"

Agreed

Kevin Barrett recently issued thinly veiled threats to the media for not reporting "the Truth"

Post source sounds like opinion to me. What is it Kevin Barrett could possibly do to the media that has obviously already done a job on him?

Val McClatchey and Lloyde England are two individuals harassed online and in print as being "part of the coverup." Their crimes were, respectively, taking a photograph and being hit by a light pole.

Harassed by whom? Someone on my YouTube account posted the middle finger about 3000 times into my comments. Is everyone who believes the official version responsible for that?

Just today I was accused of being a "Nationalist" and a "Nazi" for pointing out to a Truther that the FDR evidence of UA93 proves it wasn't hit by an air-to-air missile

Who accused you and how does he represent all truthers? I was accused once by someone that I was an Iranian Spy spreading disinformation. So what? Do all of you official version believers endorse everything the Government and this administration tells you? Should I make that generalization?

Get the picture? We oppose your Movement because your Movement is nothing but vindictive rabble. Our existence has nothing to do with "cointelpro" and it for damn sure doesn't mean that you guys are right. What you are witnessing is nothing more than an expression of human decency. If you have trouble recognizing that, then you have serious problems.

Vindictive towards whom? Is 9-11 truth really anymore politically motivated then the official version holders? I think not. Human decency? Maybe you should go back and read some of this stuff. For instance I asked people on here the other day if the victims of 9-11 were worth the same tax dollars that produced nothing but a dirty dress a few years ago and some of them said no. If there was nothing to 9-11 truth you or anyone else wouldn’t bother.

Ignorance is appalling in all of its forms. Morons are holding back the human race. Don't be one of them.

Take some of your own advice.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 09:09 AM
That doesn't make a bit of sense.
No sense? So tax dollars aren't worth a real investigation into 9-11 but tax dollars are worth things like the government team on counter disinformation? I thought it was all just crazy nonsense believed by hardly anyone? Why the waste of money?

Drudgewire
16th August 2007, 09:10 AM
Is 9-11 truth really anymore politically motivated then the official version holders? I think not.
Wow. No longer worth the time. Welcome to ignore.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 09:14 AM
None of which addresses my question about the media and governments of other nations. Again, why do they acquiesce?.

Do they all? Says who?


Because it's a shame to see someone believing in foolishness. It's like that old slogan from years ago - "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

Oh so you're doing this out of the kindness of your heart and the love of humanity and just what to set these poor souls straight? Yes it's such a shame. I bet it just keeps you up all night worrying your little head.

ok

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 09:16 AM
Because you're spewing your nonsense all over the internet, and somebody must put some reality into this.
Good luck with your mission.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 09:30 AM
boo friggin hoo

uk_dave
16th August 2007, 09:34 AM
Do they all? Says who?




Oh so you're doing this out of the kindness of your heart and the love of humanity and just what to set these poor souls straight? Yes it's such a shame. I bet it just keeps you up all night worrying your little head.

ok

Are we spoiling your fun? Is that why 'truthers' are constantly whining about skeptics?

Seriously though, I'm sure the 'truth' movement would have it's little films in all major theatres and it's shining lights educating the masses on tv every night if it wasn't for the debunking community. Hell, you might even have got some candidates elected in the US mid-terms.
Nice little fantasy huh?

Whereas in reality one of the chief proponents of the 911 conspiracy theory is currently working on the third version of his film because ordinary people bothered to rain on his parade and point out the flaws in the previous two versions.

Similarily, the pentacon 'researchers' trumpeted their 'smoking gun' film and claimed it would be soon followed by a complete and unabridged 'researchers edition', only the flaws pointed out in their film by ordinary people who just happened to have better critical thinking skills than the filmmakers has postponed the release of the 'researchers edition' and one suspects all we will get now will be pentacon v.2.0.

Without the debunking community the 'truth' movement would have made an even bigger fool of itself in the real world than it already has.

Who should we send the bill to?

Redtail
16th August 2007, 09:37 AM
No sense? So tax dollars aren't worth a real investigation into 9-11 but tax dollars are worth things like the government team on counter disinformation? I thought it was all just crazy nonsense believed by hardly anyone? Why the waste of money?

What government team on counter disinformation? (Also, funny you should call it counter disinformation.)

HyJinX
16th August 2007, 09:42 AM
After reading through this thread...I believe that ZEN has earned one of these...

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 09:44 AM
What government team on counter disinformation? (Also, funny you should call it counter disinformation.)
Counter misinformation

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html

twinstead
16th August 2007, 09:47 AM
Oh, I thought this was about COINTELPRO.

You know, Zen, that evil government job of sending out people to act like crazy paranoid conspiracy theorists to make people believe ALL conspiracy theorists are idiots or crazy...

Oh. Never mind. Carry on.

sts60
16th August 2007, 09:48 AM
Jim Fetzer has repeatedly stated that "there is a special place in hell" for all engineers and architects who defend the "official conspiracy theory"
Agreed
Aww. You're so sweet. See you there!

Regnad Kcin
16th August 2007, 09:52 AM
After reading through this thread...I believe that ZEN has earned one of these...The truthers, my friend
Are twistin' in the wind
The truthers are
Twistin' in the wind

Redtail
16th August 2007, 09:54 AM
Counter misinformation

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html

So basicly you're saying that since the government spent tax dollars on a team to counter misinformation, that means they should spend tax dollars doing what the "misinformants" want done?

Myriad
16th August 2007, 10:00 AM
Speaking of wastes of money, if the insurance companies thought the kind of evidence you're offering here had even a 1 in 100 chance of pinning liability for the attacks on a U.S. government conspiracy, they'd have eagerly put up $50 million for their own investigation before paying out $5 billion in claims or letting deadlines for civil lawsuits expire.

They were certainly willing to pay tens of millions for legal cases (as did Silverstein), including the ones they lost, because of the billions at stake.

But they weren't willing to throw good money after bad, by trying to make a legal case that the attacks were an inside job.

But perhaps that was a big blunder on their part! I mean, who would expect the biggest insurance companies in the world to be able to make good business decisions in their own self-interest?

Respectfully,
Myriad

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 10:02 AM
Are we spoiling your fun? Is that why 'truthers' are constantly whining about skeptics?

Seriously though, I'm sure the 'truth' movement would have it's little films in all major theatres and it's shining lights educating the masses on tv every night if it wasn't for the debunking community. Hell, you might even have got some candidates elected in the US mid-terms.
Nice little fantasy huh?

Whereas in reality one of the chief proponents of the 911 conspiracy theory is currently working on the third version of his film because ordinary people bothered to rain on his parade and point out the flaws in the previous two versions.

Similarily, the pentacon 'researchers' trumpeted their 'smoking gun' film and claimed it would be soon followed by a complete and unabridged 'researchers edition', only the flaws pointed out in their film by ordinary people who just happened to have better critical thinking skills than the filmmakers has postponed the release of the 'researchers edition' and one suspects all we will get now will be pentacon v.2.0.

Without the debunking community the 'truth' movement would have made an even bigger fool of itself in the real world than it already has.

Who should we send the bill to?
Wasn't it also the Pentagon and the FAA who were asked to come back and revise their version of events for 9-11? What's their excuse? Did they have access to less evidence or information then some truther movie? You're right. Why revise a lie if enough idiots believe it already. On the other hand if your mission is to find the complete truth you might have to revise some things as certain elements come to light that weren't evident before. Will the commission be doing this any time soon? After all it's the commission themselves who have stated things like...

Lee Hamilton "Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right..."

"People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here."

Who's going to be investigating it any further? People who are satisfied with the present version?

twinstead
16th August 2007, 10:03 AM
Yea, forget about media and law enforcement agencies; all the truthers have to do is gather their incontrovertible evidence of inside job and visit the offices of any insurance company involved in the event.

twinstead
16th August 2007, 10:05 AM
After all it's the commission themselves who have stated things like...

Lee Hamilton "Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right..."

"People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here."


Do you SERIOUSLY think he is talking about an 'inside job'?

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 10:08 AM
Speaking of wastes of money, if the insurance companies thought the kind of evidence you're offering here had even a 1 in 100 chance of pinning liability for the attacks on a U.S. government conspiracy, they'd have eagerly put up $50 million for their own investigation before paying out $5 billion in claims or letting deadlines for civil lawsuits expire.

They were certainly willing to pay tens of millions for legal cases (as did Silverstein), including the ones they lost, because of the billions at stake.

But they weren't willing to throw good money after bad, by trying to make a legal case that the attacks were an inside job.

But perhaps that was a big blunder on their part! I mean, who would expect the biggest insurance companies in the world to be able to make good business decisions in their own self-interest?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Did the insurance companies pay out right away? It was just settled a couple of months ago.

The airlines have just filed for the FBI to testify in a class-action case brought against them by 9-11 families.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/05/world-trade-center-insurance-settlement.php

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-07-airlines-lawsuits_N.htm

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 10:09 AM
Do you SERIOUSLY think he is talking about an 'inside job'?
He was talking about not getting it right and how things might be uncovered in the future. But you're satisfied.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 10:11 AM
So basicly you're saying that since the government spent tax dollars on a team to counter misinformation, that means they should spend tax dollars doing what the "misinformants" want done?
No I'm asking if it's all nonsense why would they waste the money if no one in any great numbers really believes it?

Is a complete investigation not worth more then this or a dirty dress?

twinstead
16th August 2007, 10:12 AM
Insurance companies fight tooth and nail something to not pay even if they really have no choice. What else is new?

If the insurance companies had even a hint that real evidence existed of an inside job that would effect their need to pay anything, they would spare no expense. Your 'new investigation' would have unlimited funds.

Zen If you don't find it telling that there is indeed NOTHING happening of the sort then you really don't care about the truth at all.

twinstead
16th August 2007, 10:13 AM
He was talking about not getting it right and how things might be uncovered in the future. But you're satisfied.

no, I'm satisfied it WASN'T AN INSIDE JOB.

Will additional non CT things be uncovered? Sure. What investigation doesn't have that happen?

Redtail
16th August 2007, 10:28 AM
No I'm asking if it's all nonsense why would they waste the money if no one in any great numbers really believes it?

A bit of a waste yes but spreading ignorance is spreading ignorance and is best avoided. (BTW how much did they spend on it?)

Is a complete investigation not worth more then this or a dirty dress?

What was left out that you want investigated?

Corsair 115
16th August 2007, 11:42 AM
Do they all? Says who?Says me.

You're free to provide evidence of the government of any democratic nation which has lodged an official governmental protest with the U.S. government over allegations of a cover-up in regards to 9/11. I am not aware of any - are you?

I am likewise not aware of the media of any nation with a free press generating serious and genuine news investigations alleging U.S. government participation and planning of the events of 9/11. Are you?

Belz...
16th August 2007, 12:07 PM
Jason Bermas isn’t the only one claiming pressure on first responders to keep their mouths shut.

If that's the case, I hope you realise that that makes the first responders part of the conspiracy, as they know what really happened.

No sympathy for Larry Silverstein, the Airlines, or anyone else who pointed their finger with one hand and held the other one out for a payout out before the smoke even cleared.

Do you even know why businesses exist ?

I thought you were all concerned about honor? I’m sorry but I find nothing honorable about Silverstein.

Why ? What would you'd have him do ?

Harassed by whom?

Killtown, Lyte Trip, respectively.

No sense? So tax dollars aren't worth a real investigation into 9-11 but tax dollars are worth things like the government team on counter disinformation?

Ah! Now this makes sense.

Yes, real things are worth more ressources than phantoms.

I thought it was all just crazy nonsense believed by hardly anyone? Why the waste of money?

No, that's the CTers' theory.

Belz...
16th August 2007, 12:09 PM
Good luck with your mission.

What mission ?

It's something I feel needs to be done. I'm not being paid for this. Otherwise my post count would be above Claus'.

Myriad
16th August 2007, 12:11 PM
Did the insurance companies pay out right away? It was just settled a couple of months ago.


And they paid the money.

Billions of dollars. (Note that the billions for the WTC buildings are only a fraction of the insurance claims paid as a result of 9/11.)

Billions of dollars that they wouldn't have to lose, if they could convince juries that 9/11 was an inside job.

Did they use the delay to also investigate the attacks? Maybe they did, but if so, then clearly that investigation revealed no compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

The airlines have just filed for the FBI to testify in a class-action case brought against them by 9-11 families.


My understanding is that the airlines are seeking information that they believe the FBI already has, about the terrorists' methods and resources, to defend the posiiton that the airlines were not negligent by failing to protect the passengers from the attacks. (I'm sure this is one legal maneuver among many. It's certainly not the sole deciding factor in the case, because it's quite possible that the attacks were well-planned, but the airlines could still be ruled negligent in some way that contributed to the attacks. That's for the lawyers and the jury to decide.)

Perhaps some new information of interest to historians might be made public as a result, such as evidence supporting or refuting the claim that the terrorists had guns aboard.

In what way does this news support any claim about 9/11 being an inside job or the claimed need for a new investigation?

Respectfully,
Myriad

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 12:33 PM
Says me.

You're free to provide evidence of the government of any democratic nation which has lodged an official governmental protest with the U.S. government over allegations of a cover-up in regards to 9/11. I am not aware of any - are you?

I am likewise not aware of the media of any nation with a free press generating serious and genuine news investigations alleging U.S. government participation and planning of the events of 9/11. Are you?
What do you consider media? Do only corporate spoke models reading off of teleprompters apply?

June 26, 2002 Posted: 8:26 PM EDT (0026 GMT)
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/26/france.book/
French buy into 9/11 conspiracy
PARIS, France (CNN) -- Throughout the spring, and into this summer, a leading bestseller in France has not been some great work of French literature but a $17-dollar paperback called the "Horrifying Fraud."

November 25, 2003
http://www.alternet.org/story/17254/
Media Silence on 9/11
By Danny Schechter and Colleen Kelly, AlterNet.
Conspiracy theories about these events flourish because independently verified information has yet to see the light of day. More importantly no one has been held accountable for any lapses or misjudgments that left our country undefended.

Nov 10th 2004
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.content.html
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
89% Yes

Friday, December 9, 2005
http://www.editorsweblog.org/print_newspapers/2005/12/us_media_coverage_of_911_report_card_und.php
US: media coverage of 9/11 report card 'underwhelming'?
Political reporter Tom Edsall of The Washington Post stated he was: "surprised to see ... that ... The New York Times, played the story inside. Insofar as the press drives a story, that will diminish public reaction ... The NYT has a wider national distribution than the Post. We gave the story top of the front page story, which I think is the correct play."

6th September 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770
Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'
by JAYA NARAIN
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics. Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

http://www.iwantmedia.com/after911.html
Media After 9/11
Coverage issues, ad losses, anthrax attacks

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 12:37 PM
And they paid the money.

Billions of dollars. (Note that the billions for the WTC buildings are only a fraction of the insurance claims paid as a result of 9/11.)

Billions of dollars that they wouldn't have to lose, if they could convince juries that 9/11 was an inside job.

Did they use the delay to also investigate the attacks? Maybe they did, but if so, then clearly that investigation revealed no compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.




My understanding is that the airlines are seeking information that they believe the FBI already has, about the terrorists' methods and resources, to defend the posiiton that the airlines were not negligent by failing to protect the passengers from the attacks. (I'm sure this is one legal maneuver among many. It's certainly not the sole deciding factor in the case, because it's quite possible that the attacks were well-planned, but the airlines could still be ruled negligent in some way that contributed to the attacks. That's for the lawyers and the jury to decide.)

Perhaps some new information of interest to historians might be made public as a result, such as evidence supporting or refuting the claim that the terrorists had guns aboard.

In what way does this news support any claim about 9/11 being an inside job or the claimed need for a new investigation?

Respectfully,
Myriad
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny09_weiner/062008insurance.html

August 20, 2006

WEINER CALLS FOR STEEP FINES AGAINST STALLING WTC INSURERS
ASKS INSURANCE DEPARTMENT TO SEIZE MONEY
INSURANCE GIANTS MAKING “ON THE FLOAT”
PENALTIES WOULD FUND COMPLETION OF
WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 12:44 PM
What was left out that you want investigated?


http://antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2209
March 31, 2004
Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission?
by Paul Sperry
The fine print of the deal takes the chance of the commission taking sworn public testimony from any other White House official – including Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, President Bush himself or Vice President Dick Cheney – completely off the table. It also precludes the panel from having the option of calling Rice, who's made media statements contradicting evidence and sworn statements by other officials, back to testify.

Myriad
16th August 2007, 12:55 PM
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny09_weiner/062008insurance.html

August 20, 2006

WEINER CALLS FOR STEEP FINES AGAINST STALLING WTC INSURERS
ASKS INSURANCE DEPARTMENT TO SEIZE MONEY
INSURANCE GIANTS MAKING “ON THE FLOAT”
PENALTIES WOULD FUND COMPLETION OF
WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL


This is a letter written and publically released by a New York congressman, five years after 9/11, urging the New York State government department in charge of overseeing the practices of the insurance business in New York State to put pressure on the insurance companies to pay the money that the courts had determined that they owe and which was needed to fund the rebuilding of parts of New York destroyed by the attacks.

How does this support any claim about 9/11 being an inside job or the claimed need for a new investigation?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Redtail
16th August 2007, 01:05 PM
http://antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2209
March 31, 2004
Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission?
by Paul Sperry
The fine print of the deal takes the chance of the commission taking sworn public testimony from any other White House official – including Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, President Bush himself or Vice President Dick Cheney – completely off the table. It also precludes the panel from having the option of calling Rice, who's made media statements contradicting evidence and sworn statements by other officials, back to testify.

From that article.

Even under oath, Rice can dodge tough questions by claiming her answers would jeopardize national security or the war on terror. "I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but again, that's a classified area, and I just can't get into it," she could say. Or she could come down with Washington amnesia – "I have no recollection of that." And she and everyone else in the White House could skate. The commission has no recourse at that point.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 01:06 PM
This is a letter written and publically released by a New York congressman, five years after 9/11, urging the New York State government department in charge of overseeing the practices of the insurance business in New York State to put pressure on the insurance companies to pay the money that the courts had determined that they owe and which was needed to fund the rebuilding of parts of New York destroyed by the attacks.

How does this support any claim about 9/11 being an inside job or the claimed need for a new investigation?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Just another reason not to fight like you claim they would have if they suspected foul play.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 01:09 PM
From that article.
That’s why you get them all under oath on the record claiming they all don't recall. How many questions could they possibly answer like that and keep up a front of competence? Someone would have to answer something.

Redtail
16th August 2007, 01:16 PM
That’s why you get them all under oath on the record claiming they all don't recall. How many questions could they possibly answer like that and keep up a front of competence? Someone would have to answer something.

Why? Because you want them to? The vast majority of people already have their view of the Admin's competence and Their saying that they can't divulge the information because it would harm national security isn't going to change that. At worst it'll make sure that Bush is reelected for a third term... Oh wait...

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 01:44 PM
Why? Because you want them to? The vast majority of people already have their view of the Admin's competence and Their saying that they can't divulge the information because it would harm national security isn't going to change that. At worst it'll make sure that Bush is reelected for a third term... Oh wait...
If it was as simple as just answering "I don't recall" or" It's a matter of National Security" then why the refusal to testify separately under oath? Even without being sworn under oath why did Bush and Cheney demand that they only be questioned together?

How did Libby do in the Plame affair? Was he able to answer "I don't recall" to everything or "it's a matter of National Security"? Or did he slip up?

I would bet that a bunch of Chicken Hawk cowards would also slip up and they knew it. That’s why they chickened out when asked to testify under oath.

Alt+F4
16th August 2007, 01:51 PM
I would bet that a bunch of Chicken Hawk cowards would also slip up and they knew it. That’s why they chickened out when asked to testify under oath.

How could they possibly slip up when it was their own people asking the questions? The whole commission was a whitewash anyway, right?

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 01:55 PM
How could they possibly slip up when it was their own people asking the questions? The whole commission was a whitewash anyway, right?
Then why didn't they take the oath? And yes it was a whitewash but not because the commission controlled it.

Alt+F4
16th August 2007, 02:02 PM
Then why didn't they take the oath? And yes it was a whitewash but not because the commission controlled it.

Because Bush and Cheney are morons.

twinstead
16th August 2007, 02:10 PM
What's the big deal about being under oath? I assume it's possible for people who don't care that they murdered 3000 innocent people to lie under oath. It's not like 'oath' is some kind of magic truth spell or anything.

slyjoe
16th August 2007, 02:15 PM
Then why didn't they take the oath? And yes it was a whitewash but not because the commission controlled it.

I don't understand the "they didn't take an oath" argument. As if anyone that could plan to kill 3000 citizens would have a problem lying under oath.

There actually seems to be a pretty consistent reason presidents have taken the stance to not testify under oath about their administration. If they testify under oath, it sets a precedent that the executive branch can be summoned and have to testify to the legislative, or any other, branch of government at the whim of that branch. All presidents have exercised this claim of "executive privilege", right or wrong.

This doesn't get them out of testifying in a LEGAL proceeding (see Libby), but it certainly appears to be the modus operandi of any sitting president to not let a non-criminal proceeding put them under oath.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 02:49 PM
What's the big deal about being under oath? I assume it's possible for people who don't care that they murdered 3000 innocent people to lie under oath. It's not like 'oath' is some kind of magic truth spell or anything.
I don't know. Why didn't they just do it? If it's not a big deal.

CptColumbo
16th August 2007, 02:53 PM
I don't know. Why didn't they just do it? If it's not a big deal.

I don't understand the "they didn't take an oath" argument. As if anyone that could plan to kill 3000 citizens would have a problem lying under oath.

There actually seems to be a pretty consistent reason presidents have taken the stance to not testify under oath about their administration. If they testify under oath, it sets a precedent that the executive branch can be summoned and have to testify to the legislative, or any other, branch of government at the whim of that branch. All presidents have exercised this claim of "executive privilege", right or wrong.

This doesn't get them out of testifying in a LEGAL proceeding (see Libby), but it certainly appears to be the modus operandi of any sitting president to not let a non-criminal proceeding put them under oath.It is also not the image that the White House likes to have seen on the television. How many times have you seen the footage of Oliver North and tobacco executives being sworn in. Whether a person is guilty or not, it is not the piece of video you want looped endlessly on the news.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 02:58 PM
I don't understand the "they didn't take an oath" argument. As if anyone that could plan to kill 3000 citizens would have a problem lying under oath.

There actually seems to be a pretty consistent reason presidents have taken the stance to not testify under oath about their administration. If they testify under oath, it sets a precedent that the executive branch can be summoned and have to testify to the legislative, or any other, branch of government at the whim of that branch. All presidents have exercised this claim of "executive privilege", right or wrong.

This doesn't get them out of testifying in a LEGAL proceeding (see Libby), but it certainly appears to be the modus operandi of any sitting president to not let a non-criminal proceeding put them under oath.
It would set no such precedent for them or any future Ppresident to have to swear under oath on a whim. They would have to draw a legitmate comparison to the weight and importence of 9-11 to get the same request.

slyjoe
16th August 2007, 03:08 PM
You may not see it, but a lot of other people WOULD see it as I described.

In your scenario, a president will pick and choose when to testify under oath? Or is it the investigating committee that decides? The "they" in your statement is not clear. You are back to the same problem.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 03:22 PM
It is also not the image that the White House likes to have seen on the television. How many times have you seen the footage of Oliver North and tobacco executives being sworn in. Whether a person is guilty or not, it is not the piece of video you want looped endlessly on the news.
Boy we are just full of excuses. There comes a time when some things are more important then how it might look unfavorable.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 03:23 PM
You may not see it, but a lot of other people WOULD see it as I described.

In your scenario, a president will pick and choose when to testify under oath? Or is it the investigating committee that decides? The "they" in your statement is not clear. You are back to the same problem.
I would believe it's you that claimed "any branch" could try to get the Pres to testify under oath on whim. That's the they.

Corsair 115
16th August 2007, 04:05 PM
What do you consider media? Do only corporate spoke models reading off of teleprompters apply? Two reporters for the Washington Post newspaper doggedly pursued the Watergate story and broke it open with solid investigating. Why isn't that happening in regards to 9/11, particularly with newspaper in other major cities in the world? And if there is so much supposedly compelling evidence available? What, no one at the Toronto Star or The Mirror or The Times of India wants to break the biggest story since Watergate? Heck, why not reporters at The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times or the Chicago Tribune, none of them want to be the most famous print journalists since Woodward & Bernstein?

Myriad
16th August 2007, 04:05 PM
Just another reason not to fight like you claim they would have if they suspected foul play.


Sorry, that makes no sense.

First, they'd had five years before that letter was sent to act upon any suspicions of foul play. And if they'd uncovered any reasonable grounds for such suspicion during that time, they could have brought it to court to gain more time for further investigation.

Second, the letter was from a representative to a New York State official, urging certain actions. It had no legal force to demand anything from the insurance companies. It wasn't even addressed to them.

Third, the insurance companies didn't respond to the letter. The wheels continued grinding and the money was eventually paid almost a year later, after all other legal recourse for the insurance companies had run out.

Do you think these corporations, the same corporations that spent tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on legal actions to minimize and delay their payment as much as possible, will part with billions of dollars that they supposedly have reason to believe is being exacted from them under false pretenses, because a U.S. Representative sends a letter to a State Insurance Commissioner? A letter that obliquely threatens the seizure of interest profits that amount to a small fraction of those huge, supposedly fraudulent, claims that they wouldn't have to pay at all if they could make a case that the attacks were an inside job?

"Cut off your own leg and hand it to me, or else I'll step on your big toe" is not a very effective threat. Do you see why?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Redtail
16th August 2007, 04:10 PM
If it was as simple as just answering "I don't recall" or" It's a matter of National Security" then why the refusal to testify separately under oath?

Why not?


Even without being sworn under oath why did Bush and Cheney demand that they only be questioned together?


Why not?


How did Libby do in the Plame affair? Was he able to answer "I don't recall" to everything or "it's a matter of National Security"? Or did he slip up?

Apples and oranges.

I would bet that a bunch of Chicken Hawk cowards would also slip up and they knew it. That’s why they chickened out when asked to testify under oath.

I would bet you could care less about getting the truth and just want to "get Bush" like the Reps "got Clinton".

CptColumbo
16th August 2007, 04:17 PM
Boy we are just full of excuses. There comes a time when some things are more important then how it might look unfavorable.Tell that to Michael Dukakis after his tank ride. It's naive and foolhardy to think that image is not important to a politician. Image is what sways many undecided voters in politics, and influences people in other areas (entertainment, retail industry).
It would set no such precedent for them or any future Ppresident to have to swear under oath on a whim. They would have to draw a legitmate comparison to the weight and importence of 9-11 to get the same request.
And who would be the judge of "the weight import[a]nce" of an event? Would the litigation over "the weight and import[a]nce" of a given event be over before a [P]resident left office?

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 07:22 PM
Two reporters for the Washington Post newspaper doggedly pursued the Watergate story and broke it open with solid investigating. Why isn't that happening in regards to 9/11, particularly with newspaper in other major cities in the world? And if there is so much supposedly compelling evidence available? What, no one at the Toronto Star or The Mirror or The Times of India wants to break the biggest story since Watergate? Heck, why not reporters at The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times or the Chicago Tribune, none of them want to be the most famous print journalists since Woodward & Bernstein?
Woodward & Bernstein aren't even Woodward & Bernstein any longer.

pomeroo
16th August 2007, 07:43 PM
boo friggin hoo


You really don't bring very much to the table. No wonder your evil movement is dying.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 07:49 PM
Why not?

Because you posted where it was claimed even if they were forced to testify under oath it doesn't matter because they could just say they don't recall. That's not true. If it was they would have testified under oath. But they were chicken so they didn't because they know they're guilty of at least a cover-up. That's why not.

[QUOTE=Redtail;2875879]Apples and oranges.

Libby tesitified under oath and got caught. Rove also got caught but came back and revised where he slipped up and they let him slide. This is why you put them under oath.

I would bet you could care less about getting the truth and just want to "get Bush" like the Reps "got Clinton".

What Clinton did and what Bush has been doing are your Apples and Oranges. Not even that close.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 07:50 PM
You really don't bring very much to the table. No wonder your evil movement is dying.
Get a table and I'll bring something to it.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 07:55 PM
Tell that to Michael Dukakis after his tank ride. It's naive and foolhardy to think that image is not important to a politician. Image is what sways many undecided voters in politics, and influences people in other areas (entertainment, retail industry).

Michael Dukakis? Yeah ok. That compares to trying to get to the bottom of 9-11. What was Bush afraid of exposing if he were to testify under oath? Was he afraid the public might find out he's really not a genius?

And who would be the judge of "the weight import[a]nce" of an event? Would the litigation over "the weight and import[a]nce" of a given event be over before a [P]resident left office?

It could play out something like this...

The issue of access to the tapes went to the Supreme Court. On July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Court (which did not include the recused Justice Rehnquist) ruled unanimously that claims of executive privilege over the tapes were void, and they further ordered him to surrender them to Jaworski. On July 30, 1974, he complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes. Their contents were revealed, and Nixon resigned just 10 days later.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 08:03 PM
Sorry, that makes no sense.

It makes sense in the context of what you posted. Why would the insurance companies pay up? When I pointed out that they didn'tpay up right away and that they were being threatened with fines you then claimed they always fight paying it.

Makes no sense? Why don't you makeup your mind?

Redtail
16th August 2007, 08:17 PM
Because you posted where it was claimed even if they were forced to testify under oath it doesn't matter because they could just say they don't recall. That's not true. If it was they would have testified under oath. But they were chicken so they didn't because they know they're guilty of at least a cover-up. That's why not.


Your proof "That's why not"?


Libby tesitified under oath and got caught. Rove also got caught but came back and revised where he slipped up and they let him slide. This is why you put them under oath.

Hmmmm.... Letting a name slip=to killing over 3000 people and starting a war... Sorry, you're wrong. Apples to Oranges.



What Clinton did and what Bush has been doing are your Apples and Oranges. Not even that close.

I'm talking about the costs of the investigations. You just want to get Bush for something and you don't care what, just like the Reps did with Clinton.

How do I know? You're on a computer typing about it, and watching movies about it instead of standing in front of the White House demanding action.

PhantomWolf
16th August 2007, 08:22 PM
I think I might have to start a new CT. Clinton was behind 9/11. Bush and his cronies are too incompetent to have planned it in 9 months. Clinton had 8 years. Why didn't Clinton bump off OBL when he had the chance? Hmmm? Clinton had 9/11 done so that Bush would look a totally idiot and the US Govt would be in the hands of the Democrats and the Clinton Dynasty for all time. I mean, look at it. Who gains the most from Bush and the Republicans looking like a bunch of incompentent morons for the last 8 years?

TerryUK
16th August 2007, 08:54 PM
TerryUK: The Truth Movement is not the enemy of 9/11 Heroes.

Yes, it is, because it attempts to tie their sacrifice to an ugly mass of ignorance, paranoia, half-truths, and outright lies.

The FFNY would have known nothing about anything, until someone told them "it might be a good idea to get everybody away from #7"




sts60 - First of all, I would like to point out that I'm not a 'truther' nor am I part of any "Truth Movement".

I think you've probably misread, or misunderstood me somehow... and
I think you'll see what I mean, if you bear in mind, that what I wrote was always based on the imaginary theory that explosives had been planted days or weeks beforehand. (This section of the forum is about conspiracies, right?)

I wrote: "The FFNY would have known nothing about anything [meaning: "would have known nothing about any explosives"], until someone [hypotheticlly]told them it might be a good idea to get everybody away from #7"

Also I made it very clear that it is ridiculous to believe that any FF knew about any explosives, ok?

sts60 wrote : Didn't you just get through lecturing NYCEMT86 about reading the oral histories

That wasn't me - you must have mistaken somebody else's post for mine.

But I'll tell you what. Seeing as how you're such a good buddy to the firefighters, please go to any FDNY firehouse and tell them all about your brilliant theory.

I felt a great deal of sympathy for all the victims of 9/11, and not least the guys who were doing their duty trying to save others.
And I'm not pushing any 'brilliant theory', I'm simply discussing the various questions, which are 'on topic' by the way.


sts60 wrote: Or you can come down to my area and talk to some of the FFs who responded to the Pentagon.

Just let me know ahead of time so I can watch, OK?

What do you want to watch, then? Are you saying you want to watch a group of FF use me as a victim, to get rid of their frustrations and hatred? That's what it sounds like to me.
Well you know what? - I don't think most of those guys are anything like what you're trying to paint them as.

Man, in their place, I wouldn't want friends like you.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 08:59 PM
I think I might have to start a new CT. Clinton was behind 9/11. Bush and his cronies are too incompetent to have planned it in 9 months. Clinton had 8 years. Why didn't Clinton bump off OBL when he had the chance? Hmmm? Clinton had 9/11 done so that Bush would look a totally idiot and the US Govt would be in the hands of the Democrats and the Clinton Dynasty for all time. I mean, look at it. Who gains the most from Bush and the Republicans looking like a bunch of incompentent morons for the last 8 years?
Run with it.

Redtail
16th August 2007, 09:04 PM
I think I might have to start a new CT. Clinton was behind 9/11. Bush and his cronies are too incompetent to have planned it in 9 months. Clinton had 8 years. Why didn't Clinton bump off OBL when he had the chance? Hmmm? Clinton had 9/11 done so that Bush would look a totally idiot and the US Govt would be in the hands of the Democrats and the Clinton Dynasty for all time. I mean, look at it. Who gains the most from Bush and the Republicans looking like a bunch of incompentent morons for the last 8 years?

Nah... Clinton was too happy. Think about it. You're kicked back in the Oval Office getting "serviced" With your cigar in a humanidor... Happy people don't blow thing up.

ZENSMACK89
16th August 2007, 09:08 PM
Your proof "That's why not"?




Hmmmm.... Letting a name slip=to killing over 3000 people and starting a war... Sorry, you're wrong. Apples to Oranges.





I'm talking about the costs of the investigations. You just want to get Bush for something and you don't care what, just like the Reps did with Clinton.

How do I know? You're on a computer typing about it, and watching movies about it instead of standing in front of the White House demanding action.
Yeah. That's right.

The Reps spending millions of dollars to try and nail Clinton on some wild goose chase land deal and offering up nothing but a dirty dress for their efforts is the equivalent of people want a real investigation into 9-11.

Is that why some refuse to take a closer look at 9-11? Is it because they feel it's just those pinko liberals trying to get poor Dubya?

Corsair 115
16th August 2007, 09:14 PM
Woodward & Bernstein aren't even Woodward & Bernstein any longer.That's it? That's your explanation as to why no competent investigative journalists at a television station or newspaper are conducting an investigation into the claims of 9/11 conspiracy?

Seems a bit thin, if you ask me.

Alt+F4
16th August 2007, 09:19 PM
Woodward & Bernstein aren't even Woodward & Bernstein any longer.

They aren't allowed to retire?

CptColumbo
16th August 2007, 09:49 PM
Michael Dukakis? Yeah ok. That compares to trying to get to the bottom of 9-11. What was Bush afraid of exposing if he were to testify under oath? Was he afraid the public might find out he's really not a genius?Yes.



It could play out something like this...

The issue of access to the tapes went to the Supreme Court. On July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Court (which did not include the recused Justice Rehnquist) ruled unanimously that claims of executive privilege over the tapes were void, and they further ordered him to surrender them to Jaworski. On July 30, 1974, he complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes. Their contents were revealed, and Nixon resigned just 10 days later.That's what is called a precedent. So you just made the point for slyjoe. It is also a different situation, you are asking for forcing the President and Vice-President to give sworn testimony as opposed to handing over evidence. The question was also in regards to your statement:
It would set no such precedent for them or any future Ppresident to have to swear under oath on a whim. They would have to draw a legitmate comparison to the weight and importence of 9-11 to get the same request. To prevent any moron on the internet with a pet conspiracy theory from forcing the President to give sworn testimony on what he had for breakfast this morning, who gets to decide "the weight and import[a]nce" of the request? What level of evidence would be required to show that such testimony was needed, rather then a informal questioning?

slyjoe
16th August 2007, 10:14 PM
...snip.

To prevent any moron on the internet with a pet conspiracy theory from forcing the President to give sworn testimony on what he had for breakfast this morning, who gets to decide "the weight and import[a]nce" of the request? What level of evidence would be required to show that such testimony was needed, rather then a informal questioning?

Cpt: I think he answered the "investigating committee" would decide, but I'm not sure - you know, they would have to show it was similar to 9-11, but to whom? The goalposts and arguments are swirling, and I'm getting dizzy. I don't think the Zen-man realizes the hole he is digging. Note: to Zen - first thing to do when you are digging yourself a hole is to put down the shovel.

Redtail
16th August 2007, 10:43 PM
Yeah. That's right.

The Reps spending millions of dollars to try and nail Clinton on some wild goose chase land deal and offering up nothing but a dirty dress for their efforts is the equivalent of people want a real investigation into 9-11.

Is that why some refuse to take a closer look at 9-11? Is it because they feel it's just those pinko liberals trying to get poor Dubya?

Kinda. It just as much of a waste of money. Throw a bunch of mud and hope something sticks. (And if something DOES stick hope it isn't as stupid as Clinton getting a BJ and lying about it so his wife doesn't find out... In all honesty if He'd have just said "Yeah... she kissed Mr. happy. Now can I get back to work?" I wouldn't care at all.)

9/11 Chewy Defense
16th August 2007, 10:51 PM
Ladies & Gentlemen,

I've got an up-date about Loose Change creator, Dylan Avery:

On MySpace Dylan Avery has refused to answer our questions we posed to him about the money issue. Instead he has sent one of his friends to respond for him. In the letter it states that "Dylan told me he just gave up on replying to you", also another letter said: "9/11/06 cost them $30,000 and they didn't ask for a DIME.". As for whom they gave the $30,000 to is unclear. They refuse to give details about the money.

Also: "They give away everything. 10,000 DVD's, 600 shirts. All free. When's the last time you did that?"

Talk about being a bit rude!

Belz...
17th August 2007, 04:31 AM
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny09_weiner/062008insurance.html

August 20, 2006

WEINER CALLS FOR STEEP FINES AGAINST STALLING WTC INSURERS
ASKS INSURANCE DEPARTMENT TO SEIZE MONEY
INSURANCE GIANTS MAKING “ON THE FLOAT”
PENALTIES WOULD FUND COMPLETION OF
WORLD TRADE CENTER MEMORIAL

Typical truther. Get an answer from an opponent, and instead of adressing the points raises, link to a new article, and be sure NEVER to state your own opinion.

Just another reason not to fight like you claim they would have if they suspected foul play.

What ? So just pay up billions ??

Then why didn't they take the oath? And yes it was a whitewash but not because the commission controlled it.

You're not very good at this "consistency" thing, are you ?

Belz...
17th August 2007, 04:40 AM
It would set no such precedent for them or any future Ppresident to have to swear under oath on a whim.

Gosh, do you understand anything ?

Boy we are just full of excuses.

You mean like this:

There comes a time when some things are more important then how it might look unfavorable.

You're trying to project your own idealistic morality unto other people.

Woodward & Bernstein aren't even Woodward & Bernstein any longer.

Again, typical truther. Don't answer the points brought up but nitpick on a word or two. The question is : WHY aren't those investigating 9/11 and bringing the truth to the people ? If it's that obvious ? Are they ALL shills of the government ?

Because you posted where it was claimed even if they were forced to testify under oath it doesn't matter because they could just say they don't recall. That's not true. If it was they would have testified under oath.

Contradiction.

But they were chicken so they didn't because they know they're guilty of at least a cover-up.

Speculation.

Why would the insurance companies pay up?

Because it was determined that the claim was legit.

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 07:00 AM
Cpt: I think he answered the "investigating committee" would decide, but I'm not sure - you know, they would have to show it was similar to 9-11, but to whom? The goalposts and arguments are swirling, and I'm getting dizzy.

I suspect you were dizzy long before I ever came along.

I wasn’t the one to bring up these asinine arguments. One idiot claims Dubya can't testify under oath because it would set a precedent and could be used politically to get the President to swear under oath on a whim. I said that's not true they would have to prove it has to have equal or more importance then 9-11.

The next idiot comes in and asks who's "they".

I don't know whoever you're claiming would use it on a whim. I then show how Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena.

Then one of the idiots or maybe a whole new idiot chimes in and claims that’s a precedent.

So the precedent’s already been set? There you go. Who brought it up? Me?

How many idiots from how many different directions do you want me to debate with? Why don’t you debate each other on this? As if anything any of you brought has anything to do with the need for a real investigation into 9-11

It’s all just avoidance.

slyjoe
17th August 2007, 07:08 AM
I don't appreciate being called an idiot.

Please see post 1353 for CptColumbo's reasons why the Nixon tapes were a different situation.

You kept asking over and over for "why wouldn't Bush and Cheney" testify under oath. I gave you a reason OTHER than 9-11 of why NO president wants to do this. This is an educational forum, and thought you might learn something.

Because of poor reading comprehension and a lack of WILLINGNESS to learn, I fear that for you education is out of the question.

And by the way - look at the thread title. It is not about a new investigation which you seem to be harping on.

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 07:24 AM
I don't appreciate being called an idiot.

Please see post 1353 for CptColumbo's reasons why the Nixon tapes were a different situation.

You kept asking over and over for "why wouldn't Bush and Cheney" testify under oath. I gave you a reason OTHER than 9-11 of why NO president wants to do this. This is an educational forum, and thought you might learn something.

Because of poor reading comprehension and a lack of WILLINGNESS to learn, I fear that for you education is out of the question.

And by the way - look at the thread title. It is not about a new investigation which you seem to be harping on.
I don't appreciate being accused of moving the goal posts. I'm responding here. As for the title of this thread I started out with that subject and was soon asked for an explanation of the NIST report. As if...

I'm not having a one sided conversation here. Go back and read. I'm sorry some of the old and tired tactics of official version believers don't work on me. Just go back and read Gravy and what happen when I wouldn't follow down the Gravy straw man highway. He put me on ignore.


Good.

Next.

twinstead
17th August 2007, 07:29 AM
I hope then that you don't expect us to fall for the old and tired tactics of conspiracy believers, mmmkay?

Belz...
17th August 2007, 09:18 AM
I wasn’t the one to bring up these asinine arguments. One idiot claims Dubya can't testify under oath because it would set a precedent and could be used politically to get the President to swear under oath on a whim. I said that's not true they would have to prove it has to have equal or more importance then 9-11.

Zen's knowledge of politics : 0

It’s all just avoidance.

Aw, does the fact that people disagree with you hurts ?

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 09:33 AM
Zen's knowledge of politics : 0



Aw, does the fact that people disagree with you hurts ?
Yeah... lol

This going through the posts and taking things out of context is a full time job for you huh?

CptColumbo
17th August 2007, 09:40 AM
Cpt: I think he answered the "investigating committee" would decide, but I'm not sure - you know, they would have to show it was similar to 9-11, but to whom? The goalposts and arguments are swirling, and I'm getting dizzy. I don't think the Zen-man realizes the hole he is digging. Note: to Zen - first thing to do when you are digging yourself a hole is to put down the shovel.I read it more as the procedures needed to get a sworn testimony, rather than the screening process.

slyjoe
17th August 2007, 09:49 AM
Cpt: Possibly. I thought the comment was regarding whoever is investigating would have to show that the issue was "as important" as 9/11.

I think I'm giving up trying to educate or enlighten Zen.

Myriad
17th August 2007, 09:54 AM
It makes sense in the context of what you posted. Why would the insurance companies pay up? When I pointed out that they didn'tpay up right away and that they were being threatened with fines you then claimed they always fight paying it.

Makes no sense? Why don't you makeup your mind?


Once more, they paid up because their legal avenues for reducing and delaying the payment had run out.

One legal avenue that they did not pursue, for the five and a half years until they fully paid up, was making a case that the attacks were an inside job. If they could have done so, that would have reduced their liability far more than did the legal avenues that they did pursue, vigorously and at great expense.

I conclude from this that they could not make such a case, not even with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal, five and a half years to work on it, and billions at stake.

Just think of the size of the reward they could have offered to any credible witness who offered to come forward and say something like, "I was on the team that placed demolition charges in the towers," and back it up with evidence and information (dates, materials used, methods, command structure, etc.) that would lead insurance investigators to more evidence. A reasonable reward for information leading to the exposing of an insurance fraud is ten percent of the money the insurance companies would save having to pay out. In this case that's 468 million dollars for the WTC claims, probably double or triple that when other 9/11 related insurance payouts are considered.

Respectfully,
Myriad

CptColumbo
17th August 2007, 10:13 AM
I don't know whoever you're claiming would use it on a whim. I then show how Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena.

Then one of the idiots or maybe a whole new idiot chimes in and claims that’s a precedent. You should really look up the word "precedent" in the dictionary, because I don't think you understand the meaning.

So the precedent’s already been set? There you go. Who brought it up? Me?No. You cited a previous precedent regarding the President using "executive privilege" to withhold physical evidence and being compelled to turn it over. If you have been paying attention to the recent events involving testimony from Presidential aides, you would see that there is no precedent regarding testimony from the executive branch. There are rules regarding what congress can do to force someone to testify, but it is a long process that would include needing congress to be in session, and it may take a decision by the Supreme Court to determine if the Executive Branch should be included.

johnny karate
17th August 2007, 10:48 AM
I think one thing we've let happen here is allow this Truther to lead us down a rabbit hole. In typical Truther fashion, he has obsfucated and side-stepped the real issue. The question that began this whole discussion regarding Bush's refusal to testify under oath was this one:

Why would a man who supposedly orchestrated an insidious plot to murder 3,000 people suddenly get cold feet when it comes to perjury?

Now, here's the problem you're going to face with this question, ZEN. You won't be able to answer it by linking or pasting something you found on a conspiracy website. You'll actually have to apply something called critical thinking.

My expectation is that this question will continue to be ignored, or be given an insubstantial, dismissive response so that our Truther friend can then go back to niggling over insignificant details.

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 10:56 AM
I think one thing we've let happen here is allow this Truther to lead us down a rabbit hole. In typical Truther fashion, he has obsfucated and side-stepped the real issue. The question that began this whole discussion regarding Bush's refusal to testify under oath was this one:

Why would a man who supposedly orchestrated an insidious plot to murder 3,000 people suddenly get cold feet when it comes to perjury?

Now, here's the problem you're going to face with this question, ZEN. You won't be able to answer it by linking or pasting something you found on a conspiracy website. You'll actually have to apply something called critical thinking.

My expectation is that this question will continue to be ignored, or be given an insubstantial, dismissive response so that our Truther friend can then go back to niggling over insignificant details.
No you asked me who would decide. I didn't claim it was the same exact thing. There are precedents regarding executive privilege. I pointed to a Supreme Court decision where Nixon was order to comply. This points out who decides. If there needs to be another ruling because withholding information under executive privilege or refusing to testify sighting executive privilege are two different things then the Supreme Court can decide on that also. No?

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 10:58 AM
that was last one was meant for Cpt

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 11:12 AM
I think one thing we've let happen here is allow this Truther to lead us down a rabbit hole. In typical Truther fashion, he has obsfucated and side-stepped the real issue. The question that began this whole discussion regarding Bush's refusal to testify under oath was this one:

Why would a man who supposedly orchestrated an insidious plot to murder 3,000 people suddenly get cold feet when it comes to perjury? .

And I answered it. This will be about the third time without cutting or pasting anything. All convicted criminals were put under oath before they were convicted. The reason to put someone under oath even if they're a murderer with no conscience is because even if they perjure themselves that perjury has to match with others who have testified separately under oath on the same subject. And it wouldn't match. That's how they get caught. That's why Cheney and Bush would not testify separately or under oath. They specifically refused to do this. They’re hiding information period. It has nothing to do with anything other then covering their own chicken a**.

johnny karate
17th August 2007, 11:24 AM
And I answered it. This will be about the third time without cutting or pasting anything. All convicted criminals were put under oath before they were convicted. The reason to put someone under oath even if they're a murderer with no conscience is because even if they perjure themselves that perjury has to match with others who have testified separately under oath on the same subject. And it wouldn't match. That's how they get caught. That's why Cheney and Bush would not testify separately or under oath. They specifically refused to do this. They’re hiding information period. It has nothing to do with anything other then covering their own chicken a**.

Most of us know why someone is put under oath in a criminal proceeding, but you seem to be a little foggy on the issue. You might want to tivo an episode of "Law and Order" to get yourself up to speed. Since someone accused of a crime can't be forced to testify under oath, they are usually convicted by the use of something called "evidence", not conflicting testimony.

So, it is your theory that George Bush and Dick Cheney, two key players in the most massive, audacious and complex conspiracy in the histroy of human events, which they managed to pull off almost flawlessly (if it wasn't for you meddling kids!), would have somehow failed to have gotten their stories straight in the last six years and that's why they are now "too afraid" to testify under oath?

Really?

Remember that thing I mentioned earlier called critical thinking? Are you familiar with how it works?

nicepants
17th August 2007, 11:53 AM
Ladies & Gentlemen,

I've got an up-date about Loose Change creator, Dylan Avery:

On MySpace Dylan Avery has refused to answer our questions we posed to him about the money issue. Instead he has sent one of his friends to respond for him. In the letter it states that "Dylan told me he just gave up on replying to you", also another letter said: "9/11/06 cost them $30,000 and they didn't ask for a DIME.". As for whom they gave the $30,000 to is unclear. They refuse to give details about the money.

Also: "They give away everything. 10,000 DVD's, 600 shirts. All free. When's the last time you did that?"

Hmm..if everything is free...why does the DVD cost $17.95 at the Loose Change Store (http://lc911.com/lc911/catalog/)?

Avery says that over 50,000 copies have been sold. SOURCE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/)

I still want to know what Dylan's current job is.

Belz...
17th August 2007, 12:09 PM
Yeah... lol

This going through the posts and taking things out of context is a full time job for you huh?

Out of context ?

Tell me, Zen. What "context" could possibly change the meaning of those sentences ?

Please, I need a good laugh.

SpaceMonkeyZero
17th August 2007, 12:10 PM
$17.95 Shipping and Handling?

That's how I would rip people off if I were giving things away for "free"

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 12:25 PM
Most of us know why someone is put under oath in a criminal proceeding, but you seem to be a little foggy on the issue. You might want to tivo an episode of "Law and Order" to get yourself up to speed. Since someone accused of a crime can't be forced to testify under oath, they are usually convicted by the use of something called "evidence", not conflicting testimony.

So, it is your theory that George Bush and Dick Cheney, two key players in the most massive, audacious and complex conspiracy in the histroy of human events, which they managed to pull off almost flawlessly (if it wasn't for you meddling kids!), would have somehow failed to have gotten their stories straight in the last six years and that's why they are now "too afraid" to testify under oath?

Really?

Remember that thing I mentioned earlier called critical thinking? Are you familiar with how it works?
Theory? They would have failed miserably and they know it. That's why they refused to even try. Like I said... chicken.

Cheney's accounts of that morning already don't even match with his previous accounts. First he claimed he got to the bunker after the plane had already hit the Pentagon then that was later revised to just after the plane hit the pentagon. Neither of these accounts match Mineta’s version of events. Not even close. The problem is Mineta testiomony is the only one under oath. Now this is where it would have been useful to get the Presidents version of events separately under oath.

Here’s a couple of other interesting fact about your official version of the truth that might be better well done in a future investigation.

NORAD ' S testimony was deemed to be "so far from the truth" according to Kean himself after the release of the report. ""It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."


“Leaders of a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks complained Tuesday that the Bush administration has been too slow to provide access to key documents and is intimidating witnesses by insisting that CIA and FBI "minders" attend sensitive interviews. “- LA Times.com
July 9, 2003.

Drudgewire
17th August 2007, 12:26 PM
Avery says that over 50,000 copies have been sold. SOURCE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/)
Avery says that over 50,000 copies have been sold. A heavily edited version is still intended for cinema screening at the fifth anniversary of 9/11 in September 2006.
I'm not sure whether to laugh more at the first or second sentence. :D

Pardalis
17th August 2007, 12:28 PM
Zen, did you even read Johnny Karate's comment?

Sometimes I think talking to you twoofers is just a waste of time and energy. At least I hope some fence-sitters read Johnny's post and understood its cleverness.

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 12:31 PM
Out of context ?

Tell me, Zen. What "context" could possibly change the meaning of those sentences ?

Please, I need a good laugh.
You're taking replies of mine where I state the question originally asked to me and cutting it out like I was the one who originally asked it. Go back and read.

For instance

"Why would the insurance companies pay up?"

That was asked of me and what you cut out was the beginning of my answer. I replied it took them 5 years to pay out and they were threatened by a politician with fines.

Do you just cut things out of context or do you also read out of context?

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 12:33 PM
Zen, did you even read Johnny Karate's comment?

Sometimes I think talking to you twoofers is just a waste of time and energy. At least I hope some fence-sitters read Johnny's post and understood its cleverness.
Is Johnny karate your hero? How cute.

Drudgewire
17th August 2007, 12:34 PM
Sometimes I think talking to you twoofers is just a waste of time and energy.
You wouldn't believe how much more enjoyable this thread is when you only see the parts of his posts other people are quoting. :)

Pardalis
17th August 2007, 12:38 PM
Is Johnny karate your hero? How cute.

The people who keep putting up with your nonsense and keep giving you insightful and intelligent responses even after you ignore them are all my heroes, yes.

twinstead
17th August 2007, 12:41 PM
Is Johnny karate your hero? How cute.

Also what is very cute is your avoiding any messy information that just might upset this little fantasy world you've built.

That's okay. All we have to do is wait until the years go by and folks like you are still presenting your earth-shattering evidence that 50 years ago 911 was an inside job on whatever will pass for internet forums by then.

Your irrelevance will be my personal victory, 'cause you quite frankly represent just about everything I hate about extremists and ideologues in one shiny little package.

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 12:42 PM
The people who keep putting up with your nonsense and keep giving you insightful and intelligent responses even after you ignore them are all my heroes, yes.
Really? Do you dream about them?

Pardalis
17th August 2007, 12:46 PM
Really? Do you dream about them?

Grow up.

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 12:47 PM
Also what is very cute is your avoiding any messy information that just might upset this little fantasy world you've built.

That's okay. All we have to do is wait until the years go by and folks like you are still presenting your earth-shattering evidence that 50 years ago 911 was an inside job on whatever will pass for internet forums by then.

Your irrelevance will be my personal victory, 'cause you quite frankly represent just about everything I hate about extremists and ideologues in one shiny little package.
Glad I could give a little meaning and purpose to your pathetic life.

You’re welcome.

johnny karate
17th August 2007, 12:49 PM
Theory? They would have failed miserably and they know it. That's why they refused to even try. Like I said... chicken.

Cheney's accounts of that morning already don't even match with his previous accounts. First he claimed he got to the bunker after the plane had already hit the Pentagon then that was later revised to just after the plane hit the pentagon. Neither of these accounts match Mineta’s version of events. Not even close. The problem is Mineta testiomony is the only one under oath. Now this is where it would have been useful to get the Presidents version of events separately under oath.

Here’s a couple of other interesting fact about your official version of the truth that might be better well done in a future investigation.

NORAD ' S testimony was deemed to be "so far from the truth" according to Kean himself after the release of the report. ""It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."


“Leaders of a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks complained Tuesday that the Bush administration has been too slow to provide access to key documents and is intimidating witnesses by insisting that CIA and FBI "minders" attend sensitive interviews. “- LA Times.com
July 9, 2003.

Oh... I see.

So, it is your theory that George Bush and Dick Cheney, two key players in the most massive, audacious and complex conspiracy in the histroy of human events, which they managed to pull off almost flawlessly (if it wasn't for you meddling kids!), would have somehow failed to have gotten their stories straight in the last six years and that's why they are now "too afraid" to testify under oath?

It's a yes or no question.

johnny karate
17th August 2007, 12:52 PM
The people who keep putting up with your nonsense and keep giving you insightful and intelligent responses even after you ignore them are all my heroes, yes.

Pardalis is just being bashful. Everyone knows that Superman is everyone's hero! :D

twinstead
17th August 2007, 12:54 PM
Glad I could give a little meaning and purpose to your pathetic life.

You’re welcome.

Actually, all that you give me is a few laughs, but thanks for playing.

CptColumbo
17th August 2007, 01:18 PM
Here is what you said:
It would set no such precedent for them or any future Ppresident to have to swear under oath on a whim. They would have to draw a legitmate comparison to the weight and importence of 9-11 to get the same request.What I read that to mean is that you believe that a President should be compelled to give a sworn statement once "the weight and import[a]nce" of it is evaluated. Not about the legal precedent of forcing a President to hand over evidence or give testimony, despite claiming it fell under "Executive Privilege."

No you asked me who would decide. I didn't claim it was the same exact thing. There are precedents regarding executive privilege. I pointed to a Supreme Court decision where Nixon was order to comply. This points out who decides. If there needs to be another ruling because withholding information under executive privilege or refusing to testify sighting executive privilege are two different things then the Supreme Court can decide on that also. No?The Nixon case is different from what you are asking the President to do. The Nixon case dealt with a piece of evidence, you are asking about testimony.
I don't appreciate being accused of moving the goal posts. I'm responding here. As for the title of this thread I started out with that subject and was soon asked for an explanation of the NIST report. As if...

I'm not having a one sided conversation here. Go back and read. I'm sorry some of the old and tired tactics of official version believers don't work on me. Just go back and read Gravy and what happen when I wouldn't follow down the Gravy straw man highway. He put me on ignore.


Good.

Next.The "old tired tactic" of actually doing some research on your own, and maybe learning something. That is quite the pickle. Are you sure Gravy put you on ignore, or did he just get tired of listening to and answering the same "old tired" "twoofer" ignorant questions?

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 01:22 PM
Oh... I see.

So, it is your theory that George Bush and Dick Cheney, two key players in the most massive, audacious and complex conspiracy in the histroy of human events, which they managed to pull off almost flawlessly (if it wasn't for you meddling kids!), would have somehow failed to have gotten their stories straight in the last six years and that's why they are now "too afraid" to testify under oath?

It's a yes or no question.
No

beachnut
17th August 2007, 02:32 PM
Glad I could give a little meaning and purpose to your pathetic life.

You’re welcome.
You can not even get this right. When will you present one fact about the ideas you have on 9/11?

dudalb
17th August 2007, 02:49 PM
Zen, did you even read Johnny Karate's comment?

Sometimes I think talking to you twoofers is just a waste of time and energy. At least I hope some fence-sitters read Johnny's post and understood its cleverness.

Keeping the fence sitters from falling into Conspiracy Theory Madness is the main reason for having these discussions. The CTers are usually too far gone to be helped.

johnny karate
17th August 2007, 02:58 PM
Oh... I see.

So, it is your theory that George Bush and Dick Cheney, two key players in the most massive, audacious and complex conspiracy in the histroy of human events, which they managed to pull off almost flawlessly (if it wasn't for you meddling kids!), would have somehow failed to have gotten their stories straight in the last six years and that's why they are now "too afraid" to testify under oath?

It's a yes or no question.

No

Okay, you're going to need to clarify something then, because earlier you said this:

That's why Cheney and Bush would not testify separately or under oath. They specifically refused to do this. They’re hiding information period. It has nothing to do with anything other then covering their own chicken a**.

which clearly indicates that you feel their refusal to testify under oath is due to fear. That must mean that it is the first part of my question that you disagree with. So are you saying that you don't think that Bush and Cheney were key players in 9/11?

Again, it's a yes or no question.

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 03:23 PM
Okay, you're going to need to clarify something then, because earlier you said this:



which clearly indicates that you feel their refusal to testify under oath is due to fear. That must mean that it is the first part of my question that you disagree with. So are you saying that you don't think that Bush and Cheney were key players in 9/11?

Again, it's a yes or no question.
You don't really need another person for this conversation you're doing fine on your own.

Proceed. And let me know how it turns out.

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 03:28 PM
No

[QUOTE=johnny karate;2879117]Okay, you're going to need to clarify something then, because earlier you said this:

Classic
lol

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 03:29 PM
You can not even get this right. When will you present one fact about the ideas you have on 9/11?
You first.

beachnut
17th August 2007, 03:51 PM
You first.
This is why.

stateofgrace
17th August 2007, 03:55 PM
Theory? They would have failed miserably and they know it. That's why they refused to even try. Like I said... chicken.

Cheney's accounts of that morning already don't even match with his previous accounts. First he claimed he got to the bunker after the plane had already hit the Pentagon then that was later revised to just after the plane hit the pentagon. Neither of these accounts match Mineta’s version of events. Not even close. The problem is Mineta testiomony is the only one under oath. Now this is where it would have been useful to get the Presidents version of events separately under oath.

Here’s a couple of other interesting fact about your official version of the truth that might be better well done in a future investigation.

NORAD ' S testimony was deemed to be "so far from the truth" according to Kean himself after the release of the report. ""It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."


“Leaders of a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks complained Tuesday that the Bush administration has been too slow to provide access to key documents and is intimidating witnesses by insisting that CIA and FBI "minders" attend sensitive interviews. “- LA Times.com
July 9, 2003.

Are you accusing the entire Bush administration, Cheney, NORAD, Kean, the FBI and the CIA of being involved in mass murder on 911?

Would you please list anybody else you suspect?

ETA.....Oh wait , I've had a look at the last TWO pages.

the commission
Larry Silverstein
the Pentagon and the FAA
the insurance companies
Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove,
Fox News

Anybody esle?

twinstead
17th August 2007, 04:27 PM
Are you accusing the entire Bush administration, Cheney, NORAD, Kean, the FBI and the CIA of being involved in mass murder on 911?

Would you please list anybody else you suspect?

ETA.....Oh wait , I've had a look at the last TWO pages.

the commission
Larry Silverstein
the Pentagon and the FAA
the insurance companies
Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove,
Fox News

Anybody esle?

Okay, dammit! I confess. It was I! I did it.

Drudgewire
17th August 2007, 04:33 PM
Okay, dammit! I confess. It was I! I did it.
Really? So... um... you can score airplane-shaped missiles then?

They're not for me. For a friend. ;)

stateofgrace
17th August 2007, 04:57 PM
Okay, dammit! I confess. It was I! I did it.


Ok we now have a confession ZEN, so I updated the list.

The Bush administration
Cheney
NORAD
Kean
The FBI
The CIA
the commission
Larry Silverstein
the Pentagon and the FAA
the insurance companies
Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove,
Fox News

and

twinstead

Anybody esle?

johnny karate
17th August 2007, 05:01 PM
You don't really need another person for this conversation you're doing fine on your own.

Proceed. And let me know how it turns out.

I only ask for clarification because you seem to contradict yourself. If you were more clear and upfront about your beliefs, none of this would be necessary.

So why don't you simply lay out exactly what you think happened on 9/11 and name exactly who you think was involved and to what degree? That way, everyone will know where you are coming from and we won't have to try and interpret everything you say.

I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on this topic. If you are so unwilling to have this discussion, then why are you even here?

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 06:48 PM
Are they chicken? A yes or No will be sufficient unless of course you give the answer I'm not expecting then I'll need clarification.

Will this work for me also?

lol

I only ask for clarification because you seem to contradict yourself. If you were more clear and upfront about your beliefs, none of this would be necessary.

Contradiction huh? I think that Cheney and Bush should testify separately under oath to get to the bottom of 9-11 and you want me to what... say they're guilty right now so you can ask me on what evidence when there’s been no real investigation yet? I think the fact that they won’t come clean does point to guilt of something so let’s find out. What is it all the Neo Cons say about this Patriot Act and this wire tapping nonsense?

"Well if you don't have anything to hide you got nothing to be afraid of."

How about Dubya? Does that apply to him also?

Here's a clue genius.

The investigation comes first. Then comes the separate testimony under oath. They slip up. Then we get some rope. Then we find a tree. You see there's a sequence to follow and we haven't had step one yet. We haven't had step one or two because they're chicken. Why are they chicken exactly? That's what we need to find out. I personally don't think Dubya on his own could conspire his way out of a toilet stall without calling Condi Rice to come and wipe his ass for him. But that doesn't exactly get him out in the clear does it? I always love when even his own supporters point to his obvious stupidity as proof of him being innocent of anything.

You gotta luv it.

So why don't you simply lay out exactly what you think happened on 9/11 and name exactly who you think was involved and to what degree?

That's why we need an investigation first. A real one. So we can lay it all out. Are you getting it yet?

stateofgrace
17th August 2007, 06:57 PM
That's why we need an investigation first. A real one. So we can lay it all out. Are you getting it yet?
So the one involving these guys doesn't count, right?

1,200 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene
40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero
55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York
7,000+ FBI Agents
8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon
ACE Bermuda Insurance
AEMC Construction
AIG Insurance
Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue
Allianz Global Risks
American Airlines
American Concrete Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
American Red Cross
Applied Biosystems Inc.
Applied Research Associates
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
Arlington County Fire Department
Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington VA Police Department
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee
ARUP USA
Atlantic Heydt Inc.
Bechtel
Berlin Fire Department
Big Apple Wrecking
Blanford & Co.
Bode Technology Group
Bovis Inc.
Building and Construction Trades Council
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville
Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept.
California Incident Management Team
Carter Burgess Engineering
Celera Genomics
Centers for Disease Control
Central City Fire Department
Central Intelligence Agency
Cleveland Airport control tower
Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee
Consolidated Edison Company
Construction Technologies Laboratory
Controlled Demolitions Inc.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Counterterrorism and Security Group
CTL Engineering
D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc.
DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners
DiSalvo Ericson Engineering
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon
D'Onofrio Construction
E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews
Edwards and Kelcey Engineering
Engineering Systems, Inc.
Environmental protection Agency
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates
EYP Mission CriticalFacilities
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Falcon 20 crew in PA
Family members who received calls from victims on the planes
FBI Evidence Recovery Teams
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Co.
FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2, Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade/Miami, Nebraska Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, New York Task Force 1, Pennsylvania Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Texas Task Force 1, Utah Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, Washington Task Force 1
FEMA Disaster Field Office
FEMA Emergency Response Team
FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3
Fire Department of New York
Fort Myer Fire Department
Fourteen teams of search dogs from Oregon
French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department
Gateway Demolition
Gene Code Forensics
Georgia Tech Engineering Dept.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
GMAC Financing
Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers
Guy Nordenson Associates
HAKS Engineers
Hampton-Clarke Inc.
HHS National Medical Response Team
HLW International Engineering
Hooversville Rescue Squad.
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department
Hoy Structural Services
Hughes Associates, Inc
Hugo Neu Schnitzer East
hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC
Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives
Industrial Risk Insurers
Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15
J.R. Harris & Company
Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc.
KCE Structural Engineers
Koch Skanska
Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates
Laboratory Corp. of America
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Leslie E. Robertson Associates
LIRo Engineering
Listie Volunteer Fire Company
Lockwood Consulting
M.G. McLaren Engineering
Masonry Society
Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc.
Metal Management Northeast
Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue
Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers
Murray Engineering
Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc.
National Center for Biotechnology Informatics
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
National Disaster Medical System
National Emergency Numbering Association
National Fire Protection Association
National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute
National Law Enforcement and Security Institute
National Military Command Center
National Reconnaissance Office
National Response Center
National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems
National Security Agency
National Transportation Safety Board
National Wrecking
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
New Jersey State Police
New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force
New York City Department of Design and Construction
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
New York City Office of Emergency Management
New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
New York City Police Department Aviation Unit
New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
New York Daily News
New York Flight Control Center
New York Newsday
New York Port Authority Construction Board
New York Port Authority Police
New York State Emergency Management Office
New York State Police Forensic Services
New York Times
North American Aerospace Defense Command
Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew
Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists
Numerous Forensic Dentists
Numerous Forensic Pathologists
Numerous Forensic Radiologists
NuStats
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Emergency Preparedness
Office of Strategic Services
Orchid Cellmark
Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services
Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
Pennsylvania State Police
Pentagon Defense Protective Service
Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team
Pentagon Medical Staff
Pentagon Renovation Team
Phillips & Jordan, Inc.
Port of New York and New Jersey Authority
Pro-Safety Services
Protec
Public Entity Risk Institute
Purdue University Engineering Dept.
Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers
Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity
SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams
SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams
Salvation Army Disaster Services
several EPA Hazmat Teams
several FBI Hazmat Teams
several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams
Severud Associates Consulting Engineers
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company
Silverstein Properties
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Somerset Ambulance Association
Somerset County Coroner's Office
Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department
St. Paul/Travelers Insurance
State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
Structural Engineers Association of New York
Superstructures Engineering
Swiss Re America Insurance
Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes
Teng & Associates
Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc.
TIG Insurance
Tokio Marine & Fire
Transportation Safety Administration
Tully Construction
Twin City Fire Insurance
Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Underwriters Laboratories
Union Wrecking
United Airlines
United States Air National Guard
United States Fire Administration
United States Secret Service
United Steelworkers of America
University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research
US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County
US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command
US Department of Defense
US Department of Justice
US Department of State
Virginia Beach Fire Department
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
Virginia State Police
Vollmer Associates Engineers
Washington Post
Weeks Marine
Weidlinger Associates
Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering
Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
Whitney Contracting
Willis Group Holdings
WJE Structural Engineers
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
World Trade Center security staff
XL Insurance
Yonkers Contracting
York International
Zurich Financial
Zurich Re Risk Engineering

Conspiracists: are these people liars, dupes, or shills?

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E.
Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
Amy Zelson Mundorff
Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
Andrew McConnell, S.E.
Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
Arlan Dobson, FEMA Region 2 DAS
August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Bernie Denke US&R Structural Specialist
Bill Cote
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.)
Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
Brian Lyons
Brian McElhatten, S.E.
Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB
Charles Hirsch, M.D.
Charles J. Carter, AISC
Charles Thornton, P.E.
Charlie Vitchers
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
Chuck Guardia, S.E.
D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
Dan Doyle (IW 40)
Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
David Davidowitz, ConEd
David Hoy, S.E.
David Leach, USACE
David M. Parks, ME
David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
David Ranlet
David Schomburg
David Sharp, S.E.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
Dean Tills, P.E.
Delbert Boring, P.E.
Dennis Clark (IST)
Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D.
Dennis Mileti, Ph.D.
Dick Posthauer, S.E.
Donald Friedman, P.E.
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Ed McGinley, P.E.
Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD
Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief
Edward Depaola, S.E.
Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD
Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
Farid Alfawakhiri Ph.D.
FDNY Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuono
FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
FDNY Chief Frank Cruthers
FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
FDNY Chief Joseph Callan
FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
FDNY Firefighter Sam Melisi
Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
Frank Gayle, Sc.D
Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
Gary Steficek, S.E.
Gary Suson
Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist
Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
Guylene Proulx, Ph.D.
H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.
Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
Harry Martin, AISC
J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department
Jack Messagno
James A. Rossberg, P.E.
James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
James H. Fahey, S.E.
James Lord, FSFP.E.
James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
Jan Szumanski, IUOE
Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
Jim Abadie
Joel Meyerowitz
John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.)
John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Lekstutis, P.E.
John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
John McArdle NYPD/ESU (DTC)
John Moran, NYPD/ESU (NTC)
John O'Connell
John Odermatt (NYC OEM)
John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
John Ryan, PAPD
John W. Fisher, P.E.
Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D
Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.
Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
Karl Koch III
Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
Kenneth Holden
Kent Watts
Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.)
Kevin Terry, S.E.
Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
Larry Keating (IW 40)
Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
Lawrence Griffis, P.E.
Leo J. Titus, P.E.
Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.
Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
Louis Errichiello, S.E.
Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
Mark Blair
Mark Kucera, USACE
Mark Tamaro, P.E
Mark Volpe, IW 40
Marty Corcoran
Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
Merle E. Brander, P.E.
Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Michael Burton, P.E.
Michael Dallal
Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC)
Mike Marscio, P.E.
Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
Mohammed Ettouney
Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
Nick Carcich
Norman Groner, Ph.D.
Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.
Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul Sledzik
Paul Tertell, P.E.
Pete Bakersky
Peter Chipchase, S.E.
Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
Rajani Nair, S.E.
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
Randy Lawson
Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E
Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E.
Richard Gann, Ph.D.
Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
Robert F. Duval (NFPA)
Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.
Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Robert Shaler, M.D.
Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
Robert Solomon, P.E.
Robert Wills, AISC
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
Ronald Rehm, Ph.D.
Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C
Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
Russell "Rusty" Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD
S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
Saw-Teen See, P.E.
Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal
Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
Sonny Scarff
Stan Murphy, P.E.
Stephen Cauffman
Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC)
Stuart Foltz, P.E.
Terry Sullivan, Tully
Theodore Galambos, P.E.
Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD
Thomas Schlafly, AISC
Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
Tom Scarangello, P.E.
Tom Stanton (IST)
Tony Beale, P.E.
Valentine Junker
Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
Victor Hare, P.E.
Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.)
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
W. Lee Evey
Wallace Miller
William Baker, P.E., S.E
William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
William McGuire, P.E.
Willie Quinlan, IW
Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.

9/11 Commission & Staff
Thomas H. Kean, Chair
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair
Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson

Joanne Accolla
Alexis Albion
Scott Allan
John Azzarello
Caroline Barnes
Warren Bass
Ann Bennett
Mark Bittinger
Madeleine Blot
Antwion Blount
Geoff Brown
Daniel Byman
Dianna Campagna
Sam Caspersen
Melissa Coffey
Lance Cole
Marquittia Coleman
Marco Cordero
Raj De Counsel
George Delgrosso
Gerald L. Dillingham
Thomas Dowling
Steven Dunne
Thomas Eldridge
John Farmer
Alvin Felzenberg
Gordon England
Lorry Fenner
Susan Ginsburg
T. Graham Giusti
Nicole Grandrimo
Doug Greenburg
Barbara Grewe
Elinore Hartz
Len Hawley
Christine Healey
Karen Heitkotter
Walt Hempel
Michael Hurley
Dana Hyde
Michael Jacobson
Bonnie Jenkins
Reginald Johnson
William Johnstone
Stephanie Kaplan
Miles Kara
Janice Kephart-Roberts
Hyon Kim
Christopher Kojm
Katarzyna (Kasia) Kozaczuk
Gordon Lederman
Daniel Leopold
Sarah Linden
Douglas MacEachin
Daniel Marcus
Ernest May
James Miller
Kelly Moore
Charles Pereira
John Raidt
John Roth
Peter Rundlet
Lloyd Salvetti
Kevin Scheid
Kevin Shaeffer
Tracy Shycoff
Dietrich Snell
Jonathan Stull
Lisa Sullivan
John Tamm
Cate Taylor
Yoel Tobin
Emily Walker
Garth Wermter
Serena Wille
Philip Zelikow, Executive Director

The Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11
Senate Members
Bob Graham, D - Florida, Chairman
Richard C. Shelby, R - Alabama, Vice Chairman
Carl Levin
Jon Kyl
John D. Rockefeller
James M. Inhofe
Dianne Feinstein
Orrin Hatch
Ron Wyden
Pat Roberts
Richard J. Durbin,
Mike DeWine
EvanBayh
Fred Thompson
John Edwards
Richard Lugar
Barbara Mikulski
Al Cumming, Staff Director
William Duhnke, Minority Staff Director

House Members
Porter J. Goss, Chairman
Nancy Pelosi
Doug Bereuter
Sanford D. Bishop
Michael N. Castle,
Jane Harman
Sherwood L. Boehlert
Gary A. Condit
Jim Gibbons
Tim Roemer
Ray LaHood
Silvestre Reyes
Randy Cunningham
Leonard L. Boswell
Peter Hoekstra,
Collin C. Peterson
Richard Burr
Bud Cramer
Saxby Chambliss
Terry Everett
Timothy R. Sample, Staff Director
Michael W. Sheehy, Democratic Counsel

Staff
Eleanor Hill
Rick Cinquegrana
David Barton
Ann Bennett
Daniel Byman
Michael Davidson
George Ellard
Rahul Gupta
Kay Holt
John Ivicic
Michael Jacobson
Everette Jordan
Miles Kara
John Keefe
Thomas Kelley
Dana Lesemann
Patti Litman
Arthur Menna
Lewis Moon
Patricia Ravalgi
Alonzo Robertson
Robert Rosenwald
Michael Smith
Catherine Williams


the Zacharias Moussaoui prosecution team

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79698

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 07:45 PM
So the one involving these guys doesn't count, right?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79698
NO

Regnad Kcin
17th August 2007, 07:51 PM
Also what is very cute is your avoiding any messy information that just might upset this little fantasy world you've built.

That's okay. All we have to do is wait until the years go by and folks like you are still presenting your earth-shattering evidence that 50 years ago 911 was an inside job on whatever will pass for internet forums by then.

Your irrelevance will be my personal victory, 'cause you quite frankly represent just about everything I hate about extremists and ideologues in one shiny little package.twinstead, you're my hero!

sts60
17th August 2007, 07:51 PM
stateofgrace, your list actually misses one participant... Woodsboro (MD) Volunteer Fire Department (http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/911/Maryland-Company-Provided-Vital-Element-at-Pentagon-on-911/41$51104). In one of the odder and little known-stories of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath, they were called to bring down their 1955 ladder truck. Apparently someone on the scene realized (firefighters are heavily "networked") their old Mack would fit through the tunnels and get into the central area to provide an elevated line for exposure protection. An interesting little story.

johnny karate
17th August 2007, 08:16 PM
Are they chicken? A yes or No will be sufficient unless of course you give the answer I'm not expecting then I'll need clarification.

Will this work for me also?

lol

First of all, I'm not in the fourth grade, so I don't go around calling other adults "chicken". But my answer is this: I don't know why they won't testify. But I'm not the one making claims based on this fact, so I have no reason to provide an answer.

And as far as your last question, no it doesn't work for you. Remember, it is you and the rest of the Truthers making claims. If you want anyone outside of your little world to take them seriously, you need to provide justification for them. So go ahead and continue your little verbal shell game. You'll never get anywhere with anyone not already predisposed to believe in your theories by playing it.


Contradiction huh? Yes, a contradiction. Most Truthers name Bush and his administration as the primary culprits in 9/11. I assumed you believed this as well, which is why it seemed you were contradicting yourself. It's not my fault that no Truthers can formulate a clear and concise expression of their beliefs or even be consistint in those beliefs between each other.

I think that Cheney and Bush should testify separately under oath to get to the bottom of 9-11 and you want me to what... say they're guilty right now so you can ask me on what evidence when there’s been no real investigation yet? I think the fact that they won’t come clean does point to guilt of something so let’s find out. What is it all the Neo Cons say about this Patriot Act and this wire tapping nonsense?

"Well if you don't have anything to hide you got nothing to be afraid of."

How about Dubya? Does that apply to him also?

Here's a clue genius.

The investigation comes first. Then comes the separate testimony under oath. They slip up. Then we get some rope. Then we find a tree. You see there's a sequence to follow and we haven't had step one yet. We haven't had step one or two because they're chicken. Why are they chicken exactly? That's what we need to find out. I personally don't think Dubya on his own could conspire his way out of a toilet stall without calling Condi Rice to come and wipe his ass for him. But that doesn't exactly get him out in the clear does it? I always love when even his own supporters point to his obvious stupidity as proof of him being innocent of anything.

You gotta luv it.



That's why we need an investigation first. A real one. So we can lay it all out. Are you getting it yet?

Okay, so it seems you think that Bush is merely a puppet of some shadowy regime that wields power behind the scenes, and it is this shadowy regime that masterminded 9/11 (and please, correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, then what could Bush possibly know that he might let slip while under oath? Afterall, he's just a dupe, right? So what information could he possibly possess?

You can't have it both ways. Either he's an evil mastermind, or an unwitting accomplice. If he's an evil mastermind, then it is preposterous that a man who conspired to commit the murder of 3,000 people would break a sweat about lying under oath. If he's an unwitting accomplice who's too stupid to wipe his own a$$, then what information could he possibly possess? You choose.

And seriously, have you watched an episode of "Law and Order" yet like I asked you to? It's run on TNT pretty much around the clock, so it shouldn't be too hard to catch. Based on some of your statements, you have a woeful misunderstanding of how the criminal justice system works, so the show might serve as a primer.

For starters, here's how it doesn't work:

"Hey, I think that guy commited a crime!"

"Well, okay then. Let's have us a trial!"

See, before any criminal case is brought before a jury, it first has to be determined if there is enough (here comes that word again) evidence to warrant a trial. And no, someone's refusal to incriminate themself is not enough. You can't just assume guilt and then have a criminal proceeding based on that.

We can go round and round about what Bush's refusal to testify under oath means, but at the end of the day, that fact alone will never be enough to incriminate him in the eyes of the legal system. What you and your Truther buddies need to do is scrape together what evidence you have (you know, the stuff you all claim is so obvious) and go get yourself a federal indictment. I'm sure with all of the expertise and top-notch research you guys have, this shouldn't be too difficult. Good luck and let me know how it works out for you.

And hey, speaking of contradictions, how about this sparkling little gem:

"you want me to what... say they're guilty right now (Well, of course not. That would be silly) so you can ask me on what evidence when there’s been no real investigation yet? I think the fact that they won’t come clean does point to guilt of something (Oh... I guess you did anyway)"

ZENSMACK89
17th August 2007, 08:58 PM
First of all, I'm not in the fourth grade,

So you finally did graduate? congratulations

I don't know...
That's the understatement of the year.

And as far as your last question, no it doesn't work for you.

Don't dish it out if you can't eat it as well

Remember, it is you and the rest of the Truthers making claims.

Unless I tell you something personally don't jump to conclusions about what I believe. A major flaw in your thought processes and belief system.

Yes, a contradiction.

No, it's not.

So what information could he possibly possess?

How many times do I have to answer this same question? Go back and read why they put people under oath. It's really not because they think they're afraid of some guy who lives in the clouds. What is perjury?

Either he's an evil mastermind, or an unwitting accomplice.

Is everything in your world that black and white? Is it warm in that bubble?

And seriously, have you watched an episode of "Law and Order"

Seriously is this what you use to figure out what you believe? Explains much.

For starters, here's how it doesn't work:

Yeah I know I already explained that all to you. Thanks for regurgitating it to me.

We can go round and round about what Bush's refusal to testify under oath means, but at the end of the day, that fact alone will never be enough to incriminate him in the eyes of the legal system.

Exactly why he tried to first prevent an investigation in the first place and then hindered what little of an investigation that was attempted. So nothing incriminating would be found. Chicken.[/QUOTE]

And hey, speaking of contradictions, how about this sparkling little gem:

"you want me to what... say they're guilty right now (Well, of course not. That would be silly) so you can ask me on what evidence when there’s been no real investigation yet? I think the fact that they won’t come clean does point to guilt of something ([B]Oh... I guess you did anyway

Just answer the question already. Why did Cheney and Dubya demand to testify together and refuse to do it under oath?


Here's a clue. cluck cluck

Parsman
17th August 2007, 11:44 PM
Contradiction huh? I think that Cheney and Bush should testify separately under oath to get to the bottom of 9-11

So let me get this straight Zen. You think the administration would fiendishly plan to murder 3000 of their own citizens, lie to the country about that and about weapons of mass destructin to declare an illegal war in Iraq and then have their own soldiers murdered in Iraq to cover up their opposition to the war, but put them in a chair and make a promise on an old book and they will crack and admit everything?

REALLLLLLLLLLY?

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 05:28 AM
S
REALLLLLLLLLLY?

Bush: bin Laden 'prime suspect'
September 17, 2001
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Osama bin Laden is the "prime suspect" in last Tuesday's terrorist attack… "I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"M

Bush 'Not Concerned' about Bin Laden in '02

Sen. John F. Kerry caught President Bush off guard during their final debate Wednesday night, asserting that the president once said he was "not concerned" about hunting down Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize,

BUSH: Now, look, I didn’t -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

Russert: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack

Bush flip flop on Canadian Drugs...

In the second candidates’ debate, President Bush was asked why he was blocking the import of drugs from Canada, given that allowing their import to the U.S. market may save Americans between 40 and 60 percent off the cost of their prescriptions. His jingoistic response: “When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn’t kill you.”

BUSH: We're working with Canada, hopefully they will produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary.


Now if we could just get some of this crap under oath and ask about 9-11 the possibilities are endless. I think Dubya's dumb enough to unwittingly become the White House's new deep throat. See why the President needed a “minder” when he was questioned about 9-11 by the commission?

funk de fino
18th August 2007, 07:26 AM
Now if we could just get some of this crap under oath and ask about 9-11 the possibilities are endless. I think Dubya's dumb enough to unwittingly become the White House's new deep throat. See why the President needed a “minder” when he was questioned about 9-11 by the commission?

Are you stupid?

if he testified and made the sort of bumbling stupid utterances that he has been known for since he has opened his mouth, it would make absoulutely no difference to anything

everyone would just laugh at the stupid clown of a POTUS again

If it made a difference being on oath then it would have come out anyway because the others would have slipped up

he sat and spoke for nearly 4 hours and the commission were happy with what he said, what else do you want?

Or are you saying the commission covered up any slip ups he did make?

This would only make a difference if only Bush and Cheney were the only people who knew, and carried out the attacks

Myriad
18th August 2007, 08:14 AM
Once more, [the insurance companies] paid up because their legal avenues for reducing and delaying the payment had run out.

One legal avenue that they did not pursue, for the five and a half years until they fully paid up, was making a case that the attacks were an inside job. If they could have done so, that would have reduced their liability far more than did the legal avenues that they did pursue, vigorously and at great expense.

I conclude from this that they could not make such a case, not even with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal, five and a half years to work on it, and billions at stake.

Just think of the size of the reward they could have offered to any credible witness who offered to come forward and say something like, "I was on the team that placed demolition charges in the towers," and back it up with evidence and information (dates, materials used, methods, command structure, etc.) that would lead insurance investigators to more evidence. A reasonable reward for information leading to the exposing of an insurance fraud is ten percent of the money the insurance companies would save having to pay out. In this case that's 468 million dollars for the WTC claims, probably double or triple that when other 9/11 related insurance payouts are considered.


No response to this, Zen? I'm just curious, because I plan to continue to make this point and I'd be grateful if you could find any weak or unclear elements in it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

NYCEMT86
18th August 2007, 09:59 AM
NO


Thats great.


It doesn't count because Zen said so. Zen must be jack of all trades, master of NONE!


Zen, please answer this for me. Don't dodge this.


If it's so obvious to you and the rest of the truth movement that it was an inside job, then tell me something. Why hasn't the City of New York, FDNY, NYPD, PAPD filled a lawsuit against the Government? Why aren't they at Ground Zero yelling inside job and supporting your theories? Why hasn't any of the agencies that worked at the crash site at the pentagon filled any lawsuits? Why is it there is still a minority of people WHO WERE THERE claim it was an inside job?

Oh when I say minority, I mean a handful.

Your idea of a "Clear picture" is painting it black and yelling inside job!


Please.......

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 11:07 AM
No response to this, Zen? I'm just curious, because I plan to continue to make this point and I'd be grateful if you could find any weak or unclear elements in it.

Respectfully,
Myriad
I've already answered this. Go back and read.

What are you high? Are you claiming you believe it wasn't an inside job because the insurance companies couldn't find anyone to admit to taking part in the murder of 3,000 people for reward money?

Yeah that makes sense. There's nothing like being richest guy on death row.

Got anymore more scary evidence as to why we don't need a real investigation?

Corsair 115
18th August 2007, 11:16 AM
Bush flip flop on Canadian Drugs...

In the second candidates’ debate, President Bush was asked why he was blocking the import of drugs from Canada, given that allowing their import to the U.S. market may save Americans between 40 and 60 percent off the cost of their prescriptions. His jingoistic response: “When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn’t kill you.”

BUSH: We're working with Canada, hopefully they will produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary.


I'm shocked — shocked! — to find out that politicians flip flop on issues sometimes!

T.A.M.
18th August 2007, 11:22 AM
Yes, this is what amazes me...

The evil Neocon cabal are not afraid of death for treason, and the murder of 3000 people, but they are afraid of perjury charges.

Yah

TAM:)

T.A.M.
18th August 2007, 11:23 AM
Zen:

your tone and comments are far from civil. Please try to keep within the new rules and regs for the forum, or you will be reported for not keeping it civil.

TAM:)

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 11:30 AM
Thats great.


It doesn't count because Zen said so. Zen must be jack of all trades, master of NONE!


Zen, please answer this for me. Don't dodge this.


If it's so obvious to you and the rest of the truth movement that it was an inside job, then tell me something. Why hasn't the City of New York, FDNY, NYPD, PAPD filled a lawsuit against the Government? Why aren't they at Ground Zero yelling inside job and supporting your theories? Why hasn't any of the agencies that worked at the crash site at the pentagon filled any lawsuits? Why is it there is still a minority of people WHO WERE THERE claim it was an inside job?

Oh when I say minority, I mean a handful.

Your idea of a "Clear picture" is painting it black and yelling inside job!


Please.......
Please....

Learn to read.

What's obvious to me is there has been no real investigation into 9-11 that would uncover the evidence that would warrant the lawsuits you speak of. To file a lawsuit before that takes place would only end in dismissal. For example...

Source: http://wcbstv.com/politics/local_story_110160127.html
Apr 20, 2007 4:06 pm US/Eastern
Court Ruling May Stop 9/11 Air Quality Lawsuits
(CBS/AP) NEW YORK An appeals court ruling could spell trouble for New Yorkers suing the Environmental Protection Agency and its former chief for saying that sooty Lower Manhattan air was safe to breathe after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10892648/
Jan 17, 2006
Top court nixes 9/11 firefighter families’ lawsuit
Ruling upholds decision that kin gave up right to sue by accepting funds

leftysergeant
18th August 2007, 11:30 AM
NO
Apparently, the commission did not include enough schizophrenics, anarchists and white nationalist agitators to satisfy the twoofers.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 11:36 AM
Yes, this is what amazes me...

The evil Neocon cabal are not afraid of death for treason, and the murder of 3000 people, but they are afraid of perjury charges.

Yah

TAM:)
Yeah it amazes me too. So why didn't they just do what the very commission they put together requested? Sombody answer and stop dodging why Cheney had to be in the room while Dubya answered and why they wouldn't do it under oath.

Does anyone have anything that's not just some lame excuse?

Report me all you want. It's just a cop out. If you can't take the facts Ms. Hall Monitor then put me on ignore.

Corsair 115
18th August 2007, 11:39 AM
What's obvious to me is there has been no real investigation into 9-11 that would uncover the evidence that would warrant the lawsuits you speak of.


Step one: Define "real investigation."

Step two: List those who are credible enough to lead a "real investigation." (But be sure to define what a real investigation is first; see step one.)

NYCEMT86
18th August 2007, 11:43 AM
Please....

Learn to read.

What's obvious to me is there has been no real investigation into 9-11 that would uncover the evidence that would warrant the lawsuits you speak of. To file a lawsuit before that takes place would only end in dismissal. For example...

Source: http://wcbstv.com/politics/local_story_110160127.html
Apr 20, 2007 4:06 pm US/Eastern
Court Ruling May Stop 9/11 Air Quality Lawsuits
(CBS/AP) NEW YORK An appeals court ruling could spell trouble for New Yorkers suing the Environmental Protection Agency and its former chief for saying that sooty Lower Manhattan air was safe to breathe after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10892648/
Jan 17, 2006
Top court nixes 9/11 firefighter families’ lawsuit
Ruling upholds decision that kin gave up right to sue by accepting funds


No real investigation?

So who would investigate? since you feel that all of those agencies helped in the investigation don't count.


So my question remains. How is it possible that the inside job theory is so obvious that the FDNY and other agencies working at the WTC during the attack and well after, missed it? Why aren't they at ground zero holding the banners and handing out the fliers and asking questions and demanding answers?


Edited for corrections, I misunderstood your statement at first due to lack of sleep and too much work.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 11:45 AM
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512

"Over on Jref Dr Frank Greening has been setting a few cats among a few pigeons with his cheeky debut as a Jref-er. Presenting himself as "Apollo20", Dr Greening first threw a flying punch at the Jref mentality of sheltering behind authority - including, ironically, his own paper on the WTC, much vaunted by the 'conspiracy smashers' in general and Ronald Wieck in particular."

JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

TheRedWorm
18th August 2007, 11:49 AM
This is the exact same post you had in response to a question as to your definition of authority. Does this post address either A) what definition of authority you are using or B) who should be involved in any new investigation into 9/11?

johnny karate
18th August 2007, 11:51 AM
Unless I tell you something personally don't jump to conclusions about what I believe. A major flaw in your thought processes and belief system.An easy way to avoid this problem is to just go ahead and spell out exactly what you believe happened on 9/11. But of course you won't do this because you know that once you do something other than make vague accusations, your claims will be open to refutation and (even more) ridicule.

How many times do I have to answer this same question? Go back and read why they put people under oath. It's really not because they think they're afraid of some guy who lives in the clouds. What is perjury?You seem very persistent on this point. Why do you so adamantly believe that placing Bush under oath will be enough to break this whole conspiracy wide open?

Is everything in your world that black and white? Is it warm in that bubble?Well then how about you tell me exactly what you think Bush's level of involvement was? It's not exactly fair for you to refuse to do this, and then mock me when I guess incorrectly. Out of curiousity, if you guys finally get your new investigation, are you going to make it clear what you think really happened then, or are you still going to make us guess?

Seriously is this what you use to figure out what you believe? Explains much.I really don't think that someone who said this:

"All convicted criminals were put under oath before they were convicted."

and this:

"The investigation comes first. Then comes the separate testimony under oath. They slip up. Then we get some rope. Then we find a tree."

is in much of a position to disparage anyone elses's understanding of the legal system. Seriously, even my dog (who has never seen an episode of "Law and Order") has a better understanding of it than you do, and expressed embarrassment for your sake when you posted the above statements.

Yeah I know I already explained that all to you. Thanks for regurgitating it to me.Please indicate where you stated that it first requires evidence before you can convict anyone for the supposed 9/11 conspiracy. And while you're at it, why don't you go ahead and tell us what that evidence is.

Exactly why he tried to first prevent an investigation in the first place and then hindered what little of an investigation that was attempted. So nothing incriminating would be found. Chicken.Again with this dead horse. Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone involved in a conspiracy to commit murder would have a problem lying under oath? And if you are going to play the old "Because Bush is stupid and he'll slip up" canard, then you'll have to explain why he hasn't done so in the past six years. What is it about being under oath that has you convinced Bush will suddenly panic and confess?

Just answer the question already. Why did Cheney and Dubya demand to testify together and refuse to do it under oath?


Here's a clue. cluck cluckSee Post #1410 for my response. And again with the "chicken" thing. When you get really mad at someone, do you call them a doody-head?

T.A.M.
18th August 2007, 11:51 AM
Yeah it amazes me too. So why didn't they just do what the very commission they put together requested? Sombody answer and stop dodging why Cheney had to be in the room while Dubya answered and why they wouldn't do it under oath.

Does anyone have anything that's not just some lame excuse?

Report me all you want. It's just a cop out. If you can't take the facts Ms. Hall Monitor then put me on ignore.

No, you, like everyone else, must abide by the rules of these forums. The mods encourage reporting of inappropriate conduct, of behaviour that lacks the civility that they expect. If you cannot be civil, you will be reported. Calling me names is not a good start.

So why do YOU think the evil cabalists were afraid to testify under oath and face severe prejury charges, but were not afraid of death for treason and murder?

TAM:)

Corsair 115
18th August 2007, 11:54 AM
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512

"Over on Jref Dr Frank Greening has been setting a few cats among a few pigeons with his cheeky debut as a Jref-er. Presenting himself as "Apollo20", Dr Greening first threw a flying punch at the Jref mentality of sheltering behind authority - including, ironically, his own paper on the WTC, much vaunted by the 'conspiracy smashers' in general and Ronald Wieck in particular."

JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”


Yup, there's a skilled rebuttal to facts, evidence, and reasoning right there. :rolleyes:

It seems this is going to become ZENSMACK89's standard reply; he just posted it in another thread just a few moments ago.

uk_dave
18th August 2007, 11:56 AM
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.



No, it's actually more like this:

(i) NIST has produced a valid explanation for how the structural failure of the towers was initiated and this investigation could prove useful in the future design of multi-storey structures.

(ii) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Got any?

(iii) Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about? Or do you just argue from the standpoint of personal incredulity based on your own limited world experience and a couple of hollywood films you once saw?

(iv) Have the much vaunted 'truther' professional/experts ever had their work critiqued by fellow professionals/experts and if not, why not?

(v) Are you ever going to actually do anything with your claims that 911 was an obvious inside job and why hasn't anything been done in the last six years given that you're always claiming to have majority support within the populace? Are you personally going to do anything more than type on internet forums and make the occasional google video?

johnny karate
18th August 2007, 11:59 AM
What's interesting abou that quote is that aside from the first point (to my knowledge, no one here as ever stated that NIST covered all the bases), those are all solid arguments, and yet they seem to be treating them with a certain dismissive disdain. Ah, what mysteries lurk in the mind of a Truther.

T.A.M.
18th August 2007, 11:59 AM
yes in the CTists world, the village idiot has as much insight as a PhD in any and all topics...it is the CT mantra.

TAM:)

NYCEMT86
18th August 2007, 12:07 PM
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512

"Over on Jref Dr Frank Greening has been setting a few cats among a few pigeons with his cheeky debut as a Jref-er. Presenting himself as "Apollo20", Dr Greening first threw a flying punch at the Jref mentality of sheltering behind authority - including, ironically, his own paper on the WTC, much vaunted by the 'conspiracy smashers' in general and Ronald Wieck in particular."

JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

What I have placed in bold, sounds like standard practices in any research. If you are going to tell me that the WTC was brought down by CD, I would like to know what evidence you have to prove it. I would also like to know if you personally have any experience in this field. If someone who has that experience or education in that field has written a paper, why hasn't it been peer-reviewed? That is a scientific standard, especially to have someone else test your theory and see if they come to the same conclusion.

You claim we have blind faith in the 9/11 investigation and the Government. Yet I still don't see one piece of evidence from the truth movement that can be held up to the scientific method.

NYCEMT86
18th August 2007, 12:10 PM
yes in the CTists world, the village idiot has as much insight as a PhD in any and all topics...it is the CT mantra.

TAM:)

The CTs insight into 9/11 is like having a janitor diagnose your chest pain as a broken leg. Better yet! Diagnosing a male with a UTI as having signs of pregnancy :D

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 12:10 PM
No real investigation?

No

So who would investigate? since you feel that all of those agencies helped in the investigation don't count.

I never claimed the agencies don't count just the incomplete investigation that was done.

So my question remains. How is it possible that the inside job theory is so obvious that the FDNY and other agencies working at the WTC during the attack and well after, missed it? Why aren't they at ground zero holding the banners and handing out the fliers and asking questions and demanding answers?

Maybe they don't want to lose their job for something that's just going to be dismissed because of lack of evidence because ... here we go yet once again... lack of a complete investigation that would uncover such evidence to warrant such a lawsuit. Maybe they want to live to fight another day. Were any firefighters or EMS or anyone else for that matter ever offered anything like immunity for stepping forward? What's happened to other whistleblowers involved with 9-11 like Sibel Edmonds? What kind of support or coverage is she getting?

What are you arguing? When the very investigation you believe, has been documented in a book by the very people who conducted that investigation as "set up for failure".

Why is this good enough for you? Why is it good enough for 3,000 dead?

Corsair 115
18th August 2007, 12:13 PM
I'm still waiting for a useful defintion of what constitutes a "real investigation" and a list of just who should lead such an investigation...

T.A.M.
18th August 2007, 12:15 PM
yes the FDNY members, who lost how many fellow men in 9/11, are afraid for their JOBS, and that is why they choose not to bring forward evidence to get the REAL perps for the murders...

TAM:)

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 12:15 PM
The CTs insight into 9/11 is like having a janitor diagnose your chest pain as a broken leg. Better yet! Diagnosing a male with a UTI as having signs of pregnancy :D
Better then no diagnose at all. At least the broken leg diagnoses would get me to the hospital. The official version believers are like having the doctor diagnose the heart attack as nothing but gas. Nothing to worry about.

Pardalis
18th August 2007, 12:16 PM
Actually, gas is often mistaken with heart problems, right TAM?

uk_dave
18th August 2007, 12:21 PM
I'm still waiting for a useful defintion of what constitutes a "real investigation" and a list of just who should lead such an investigation...


A real investigation would uncover the evidence the 'truthers' believe should exist, and it would be carried out by people the 'truthers' trust to uncover the evidence which they believe should exist.

It's rather like someone saying "Ahhhhh but no one has properly investigated whether Noahs Ark existed and we demand a complete investigation. Here's a theologian."

Regnad Kcin
18th August 2007, 12:22 PM
And on and on with the "we need a new investigation" nonsense. In reality, the truth-keteers are only interested in investigations that confirm their pre-determined judgement.

I've said it before, but here goes again:

Considering the immeasurable amount of work and resources it would require to pull off an "inside job" as is being proposed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- not only to plan, put into place, execute, and continue to cover up for all time -- evidence for it would be fairly dripping from the trees. Yet there isn't even a drop of morning dew on a single leaf.

Too, that people who would do such a thing for some nefarious reason or reasons haven't performed any follow-up event in order to maintain and further their goals might suggest these people don't exist in the first place.

That none of this seems to register with various CTers is a source of curiosity to me.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 12:29 PM
I'm still waiting for a useful defintion of what constitutes a "real investigation" and a list of just who should lead such an investigation...


All of these people don't believe it was an inside job but at least they know there are problems with the official version of events which is a good enough start for me.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

NYCEMT86
18th August 2007, 12:32 PM
No
Why do you think its incomplete?


I never claimed the agencies don't count just the incomplete investigation that was done.
Than I apologize


Maybe they don't want to lose their job for something that's just going to be dismissed because of lack of evidence because
Thats the great thing about the unions the FDNY and NYPD have. You can't lose your job to push for a further investigation for something that caused the death of 400+ city employees. MTA employees do it here all time after an MTA linemen is killed on the tracks.


... here we go yet once again...
Yes here we go again


lack of a complete investigation that would uncover such evidence to warrant such a lawsuit.
I understand that, my point was why aren't they protesting with you for a further investigation?


Maybe they want to live to fight another day. Were any firefighters or EMS or anyone else for that matter ever offered anything like immunity for stepping forward?
Now what are you implying here? That the Firefighters and EMS where involved and threatened to keep quiet?


What's happened to other whistleblowers involved with 9-11 like Sibel Edmonds? What kind of support or coverage is she getting?

They were fired, which probably breached their NDA. I am not going to BS you, I don't know really know the full story, sorry.


What are you arguing? When the very investigation you believe, has been documented in a book by the very people who conducted that investigation as "set up for failure".

Didn't you just say "I never claimed the agencies don't count", but if it was set up for failure, wouldn't that mean those agencies would be involved in helping it fail?



Why is this good enough for you?
Because when you have FDNY Instructors and Firefighters teach a lecture about 9/11 and the collapse of the towers in your Fire Academy Class, they don't bring up CD nor do they believe it when asked about CD. Which goes back to my original question, IF IT WAS SO OBVIOUS THAN WHY DON'T THEY PUSH FOR AN INVESTIGATION?



Why is it good enough for 3,000 dead?
ITS NEVER GOOD ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO DIE! PERIOD!

NYCEMT86
18th August 2007, 12:34 PM
Actually, gas is often mistaken with heart problems, right TAM?

Yes that is correct. Gas or indigestion.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 12:41 PM
... only interested in investigations that confirm their pre-determined judgment.

Sounds like NIST to me.

I've said it before, but here goes again:

Considering the immeasurable amount of work and resources it would require to pull off an "inside job" as is being proposed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- not only to plan, put into place, execute, and continue to cover up for all time -- evidence for it would be fairly dripping from the trees. Yet there isn't even a drop of morning dew on a single leaf.

As I've pointed out before you believe 19 hijackers did it. Was all of Al Queda in on the details? Why didn't we see Al Queda's evidence dripping from the trees enough to stop it from happening?

Too, that people who would do such a thing for some nefarious reason or reasons haven't performed any follow-up event in order to maintain and further their goals might suggest these people don't exist in the first place.

You really did forget about those pesky Anthrax attacks huh? BTW what's the status on that investigation? Any accountability there?

That none of this seems to register with various CTers is a source of curiosity to me.

Maybe it's your memory and interpretation skills that have you curious.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 12:50 PM
Didn't you just say "I never claimed the agencies don't count", but if it was set up for failure, wouldn't that mean those agencies would be involved in helping it fail?

Not the commission the investigation itself. It was the fault so much of the commission but the Adminisration who set it up to fail. The same ones who refuse to testify seperatly under oath.

Because when you have FDNY Instructors and Firefighters teach a lecture about 9/11 and the collapse of the towers in your Fire Academy Class, they don't bring up CD nor do they believe it when asked about CD. Which goes back to my original question, IF IT WAS SO OBVIOUS THAN WHY DON'T THEY PUSH FOR AN INVESTIGATION?

This guy says you're wrong...

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/190607_moore_serious_questions_911.html

Michael Moore went on record this week to tell Infowars.com and WeAreChange.org reporters that three years after the release of his film Fahrenheit 9/11 he now has many more questions about 9/11 and does not believe the public have been told "half the truth" about what really happened.

At an event to preview his upcoming film SICKO, Moore told our reporters that many firefighters have since approached him and told him the same story about hearing explosions going off inside the buildings prior to their collapse.

Moore also made it clear that he believes the attack on the Pentagon has is being covered up and kept secret from the public and that videos of the impact of flight 77 into the building will "provide answers" to what really happened.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 12:54 PM
Yes that is correct. Gas or indigestion.
That's exactly right. An incomplete examination can result in a misdiagnose.

T.A.M.
18th August 2007, 01:17 PM
Not the commission the investigation itself. It was the fault so much of the commission but the Adminisration who set it up to fail. The same ones who refuse to testify seperatly under oath.



This guy says you're wrong...

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/190607_moore_serious_questions_911.html

Michael Moore went on record this week to tell Infowars.com and WeAreChange.org reporters that three years after the release of his film Fahrenheit 9/11 he now has many more questions about 9/11 and does not believe the public have been told "half the truth" about what really happened.

At an event to preview his upcoming film SICKO, Moore told our reporters that many firefighters have since approached him and told him the same story about hearing explosions going off inside the buildings prior to their collapse.

Moore also made it clear that he believes the attack on the Pentagon has is being covered up and kept secret from the public and that videos of the impact of flight 77 into the building will "provide answers" to what really happened.

Lets see if attention whore Moore has the gonads to see this through and go "really" public with his allegations. I doubt it. He would like nothing more than for Dubya and crew to be behind 9/11, but he knows deep down there is no such proof...he just likes instigating, and sewing seeds of doubt on all things Republican.

TAM:)

stateofgrace
18th August 2007, 04:52 PM
NO

Oh I see, so what about these guys?


Interpol is an organization that aims to provide and promote mutual assistance between criminal police authorities within the limits of national laws and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Originally formed in Vienna in 1923, the organization has steadily grown in membership but never substantially changed in form or objectives (Deflem 2000, 2002a). Interpol is not a supranational police agency with investigative powers, but a cooperative network intended to foster collaboration and to provide assistance in police work among law enforcement agencies in many nations. To this end, Interpol links a central headquarters, located in Lyon, France, with specialized bureaus, the so-called National Central Bureaus (NCB), in the countries of participating police agencies. At present, Interpol counts 181 participating police agencies, with police of Afghanistan among the most recent members to join. At the Lyon headquarters, Interpol employs some 200 full-time staff and 150 seconded police officers. The objectives of Interpol have historically always been confined to criminal enforcement duties (so-called ordinary-law crimes). Since 1951, following certain politically sensitive Interpol cases that involved police from former Communist countries in Eastern Europe (Deflem 2002a), Interpol has adopted an even more explicit Article 3 to its constitution to preclude the “Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character” (Interpol website).



Before 9/11, fewer than 30 countries were committed to sharing information about the identities of suspected terrorists (http://www.interpol.int/Public/Terrorism/default.asp). Since 9/11, police agencies from more than 100 countries have worked together to identify over 10,000 suspected terrorists. This is nearly five times more than were known before 9/11. These terrorist suspects are now listed in INTERPOL's larger database (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/corefunctions/databases.asp) of suspected criminals of all types. This is only one part of a secure global police communication system (http://www.interpol.int/Public/NCB/I247/default.asp) -- which did not exist before 9/11.



Since Sept. 11, law enforcement agencies in 120 countries have joined in an unprecedented effort to track down alleged terrorists -- an effort that amounts to a global civilian front in the war.



Hundreds of terrorist suspects were arrested or indicted by authorities in 24 countries, according to U.S. State Department sources. Nations that made arrests include Sudan and Syria, both of which have been identified by the State Department as sponsors of terrorist organizations.
The latest example: German authorities' arrest yesterday of Mounir El Motassadeq, suspected of funneling money to the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were learning to fly planes in the United States.
Law enforcement agencies around the world seized $56 million in suspected terrorist assets and froze accounts containing millions more, the Treasury Department says. Of the money seized, more than half -- $29 million --was taken by authorities outside the United States.
Even nations that have been zealous guardians of banking secrecy such as the Bahamas and Switzerland have played critical roles in the attempt to ferret out terrorists and their funds.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=interpol+investigate+sept+11+attacks&meta=


Why do you imagine that 911 didn't involve the rest of the planet?

twinstead
18th August 2007, 04:57 PM
Why do you imagine that 911 didn't involve the rest of the planet?

Shhhhhhhhhhhh! It doesn't support his world view; it doesn't exist.

Corsair 115
18th August 2007, 07:04 PM
All of these people don't believe it was an inside job but at least they know there are problems with the official version of events which is a good enough start for me.


Nothing in the above answers the questions in regards to what constitutes a "real investigation" and who should be leading it.

You're the one who wrote originally about a lack of a real investigation — is it too much to ask to have you define what it is you meant by it?

Myriad
18th August 2007, 07:22 PM
What are you high? Are you claiming you believe it wasn't an inside job because the insurance companies couldn't find anyone to admit to taking part in the murder of 3,000 people for reward money?


I'm claiming that insurance companies could not make a case that 9/11 was an inside job, not even with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal, extensive experience in fraud investigation, five and a half years to work on it, and billions of dollors of their own money at stake.

Yeah that makes sense. There's nothing like being richest guy on death row.


Money that one doesn't get to enjoy personally is of no value then? Perhaps this is true in your case, but many people care a lot about others besides themselves. Many of those people would find a guaranteed half a billion dollars for their family, for their children, for their church, for their favorite cause, or for a legacy of good to stand against their guilt long after they'd be dead and gone anyhow, to be worth enormous personal risk, or even certain death.

And what makes you think the whistleblower would go to death row? Did everyone who planted demolition charges know all along that they would be used to kill people by demolishing an inhabited building? And they did it anyway? (Don't most truthers insist they were duped into it?) Even if the demolitions operatives were in on the whole plan and therefore guilty of murder, wouldn't the one who came forward be able to make a favorable plea bargain? Wouldn't the one who came forward be likely to be pardoned, if not by the current officials then by the ones who replace them when the scandal drives them out of office?

Got anymore more scary evidence as to why we don't need a real investigation?


I don't need any. If the world's most avaricious corporate sharps and their armies of lawyers couldn't find evidence of an inside job to save billions of dollars of their own money with five years and practically unlimited funds to work with, then whatever Grand High Inquisitors you'd want to appoint to the job won't either.

But do you really care what they'd find? Knowing that an investigation would find nothing, aren't you just hoping that the new investigators will skip the investigating part and move right along to punishing the guilty, as so many of your fellow truthers have advocated doing? After all, witches are clever and subtle, and have magical powers to hide themselves, so the only effective way to hunt them is to dispense with reason and let your emotions guide you. That's how Judges Stoughton, Hathorne, and Sewell saved the town of Salem from the Witchcraft Conspiracy in 1692, how Torquemada saved the True Church from the threats of the Jewish and Heretic Conspiracies in the 1490s, and how McCarthy dealt with the Communist Conspiracy that nearly destroyed the U.S. in 1954. Their ruthless efforts to defeat evil conspiracies are why they're all hailed as heroes today! Will you follow their inspiring examples?

Respectfully,
Myriad

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:13 PM
I'm claiming that insurance companies could not make a case that 9/11 was an inside job, not even with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal, extensive experience in fraud investigation, five and a half years to work on it, and billions of dollors of their own money at stake.




Money that one doesn't get to enjoy personally is of no value then? Perhaps this is true in your case, but many people care a lot about others besides themselves. Many of those people would find a guaranteed half a billion dollars for their family, for their children, for their church, for their favorite cause, or for a legacy of good to stand against their guilt long after they'd be dead and gone anyhow, to be worth enormous personal risk, or even certain death.

And what makes you think the whistleblower would go to death row? Did everyone who planted demolition charges know all along that they would be used to kill people by demolishing an inhabited building? And they did it anyway? (Don't most truthers insist they were duped into it?) Even if the demolitions operatives were in on the whole plan and therefore guilty of murder, wouldn't the one who came forward be able to make a favorable plea bargain? Wouldn't the one who came forward be likely to be pardoned, if not by the current officials then by the ones who replace them when the scandal drives them out of office?




I don't need any. If the world's most avaricious corporate sharps and their armies of lawyers couldn't find evidence of an inside job to save billions of dollars of their own money with five years and practically unlimited funds to work with, then whatever Grand High Inquisitors you'd want to appoint to the job won't either.

But do you really care what they'd find? Knowing that an investigation would find nothing, aren't you just hoping that the new investigators will skip the investigating part and move right along to punishing the guilty, as so many of your fellow truthers have advocated doing? After all, witches are clever and subtle, and have magical powers to hide themselves, so the only effective way to hunt them is to dispense with reason and let your emotions guide you. That's how Judges Stoughton, Hathorne, and Sewell saved the town of Salem from the Witchcraft Conspiracy in 1692, how Torquemada saved the True Church from the threats of the Jewish and Heretic Conspiracies in the 1490s, and how McCarthy dealt with the Communist Conspiracy that nearly destroyed the U.S. in 1954. Their ruthless efforts to defeat evil conspiracies are why they're all hailed as heroes today! Will you follow their inspiring examples?

Respectfully,
Myriad
So you are high.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:18 PM
Oh I see, so what about these guys?








http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=interpol+investigate+sept+11+attacks&meta=


Why do you imagine that 911 didn't involve the rest of the planet?
You're like a broken record with this Interpol. What are you their publicist? Did Interpol investigate all the things where the 9-11 commission dropped the ball? Do they have Bush and Cheney separate testimony? Did they get to question anyone without minders in the room? Did they get to intercept ant steel as it was being shipped out if the US? Maybe they can get on top of catching UBL or the Anthrax mailer 6 years later. What's taking them so long?

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:26 PM
Nothing in the above answers the questions in regards to what constitutes a "real investigation" and who should be leading it.

You're the one who wrote originally about a lack of a real investigation — is it too much to ask to have you define what it is you meant by it?
I think you should do it. I mean I'm really impressed with how you hit me with the all the really hard unanswerable questions consistently. Even when I've answered them all multiple times you just find new ways to ask or re-qualify the same question that even if it was answered means absolutely nothing about whether there should be a new investigation into 9-11 or not. Congratulations How do you do it? Are you a detective, an attorney? Maybe an interrogator of some kind?

You are truly a genius. Should I send you an application for the position of heading up the new investigation into 9-11 that you seem to think I’m personally putting together because I suggested it needs to be done? Be sure to include your salary requirements.

johnny karate
18th August 2007, 08:27 PM
If any of us sound like broken records, it's because you Truthers never offer responses to these issues. And once again, you have done that here.

Why has there been absolutely no outcry from any media outlet or investigative body outside of the U.S.?

It's a valid question and one every single Truther dismisses or side-steps as you have done here.

Myriad
18th August 2007, 08:28 PM
So you are high.


So you have no answer for my points.

Good, I didn't think so, but I wanted to check. Thanks.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:33 PM
Nothing in the above answers the questions in regards to what constitutes a "real investigation" and who should be leading it.

You're the one who wrote originally about a lack of a real investigation — is it too much to ask to have you define what it is you meant by it?

Well you can say what you want about Moore but once he to get an idea in his head he usually follows through with it. And if he claims some fire fighters are approaching him with questions about 9-11 some of you here better get your spin cooking. That is if you have any spin left because it sounds like to me it's all used up tired and weak.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:34 PM
If any of us sound like broken records, it's because you Truthers never offer responses to these issues. And once again, you have done that here.

Why has there been absolutely no outcry from any media outlet or investigative body outside of the U.S.?

It's a valid question and one every single Truther dismisses or side-steps as you have done here.
Why don't you define outcry?

johnny karate
18th August 2007, 08:36 PM
Well you can say what you want about Moore but once he to get an idea in his head he usually follows through with it. And if he claims some fire fighters are approaching him with questions about 9-11 some of you here better get your spin cooking. That is if you have any spin left because it sounds like to me it's all used up tired and weak.


We don't need spin. That's your department. We present cold, hard facts and logic. And we're ready with them any time you want, so you be sure and let us know when our impending doom that has been constantly just over the horizon finally gets here.

johnny karate
18th August 2007, 08:39 PM
Why don't you define outcry?


In the interest of fairplay, I'll let you define "outcry" for the purposes of this discussion, and I'll grant you a large degree of latitude. So go ahead and answer the question.

stateofgrace
18th August 2007, 08:40 PM
You're like a broken record with this Interpol. What are you their publicist? Did Interpol investigate all the things where the 9-11 commission dropped the ball? Do they have Bush and Cheney separate testimony? Did they get to question anyone without minders in the room? Did they get to intercept ant steel as it was being shipped out if the US? Maybe they can get on top of catching UBL or the Anthrax mailer 6 years later. What's taking them so long?

Oh I see, so the massive criminal investigation carried out by the US is wrong, the international community is wrong, the scientific community is wrong, the terrorist group Al Qaeda who have admitted it repeatedly are wrong, but you are right?

Ok whatever you say.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:48 PM
This is the exact same post you had in response to a question as to your definition of authority. Does this post address either A) what definition of authority you are using or B) who should be involved in any new investigation into 9/11?
Keep asking the same questions you're going to get the same answers. However many threads you ask them on. As for authority making the bare assertion that I haven't answered just because you don't like my answer doesn't actually mean you are an authority to declare that. It carries no weight with me.

The very post you are referring to is a quote from the link at the top. Maybe if you or anyone else has a problem with it you can seek out Apollo20 and ask him about it.

Again, all of you.

Go back and read. Especially read the post with Apollo20.

It seems someone has got you all nailed to a tee.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:50 PM
In the interest of fairplay, I'll let you define "outcry" for the purposes of this discussion, and I'll grant you a large degree of latitude. So go ahead and answer the question.
No. You brought it up. Or did you make it up?

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:51 PM
Oh I see, so the massive criminal investigation carried out by the US is wrong, the international community is wrong, the scientific community is wrong, the terrorist group Al Qaeda who have admitted it repeatedly are wrong, but you are right?

Ok whatever you say.
They would actually have to complete something to be wrong.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 08:53 PM
We don't need spin. That's your department. We present cold, hard facts and logic. And we're ready with them any time you want, so you be sure and let us know when our impending doom that has been constantly just over the horizon finally gets here.
If you really have any cold, hard facts and logic why don't you pack them up and mail them to NIST.

NYCEMT86
18th August 2007, 09:03 PM
That's exactly right. An incomplete examination can result in a misdiagnose.

Or an exact diagnoses, remember something as simple as heart burn can cause chest pains, but it doesn't mean a heart attack...and thats all it could be is heart burn.



<SNIP>

This guy says you're wrong...

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/190607_moore_serious_questions_911.html

<SNIP>


As for Moore, this is hear-say. There is no way to check into his story because he doesn't give names. Than again, coming from prison-planet, I really should believe them right? Because people did die in the WTC 7 and FDNY is guilty of at least manslaughter...right?


I still don't see any major rally or outcry from the FDNY for a new investigation.

leftysergeant
18th August 2007, 09:03 PM
You still haven't answered the question as to who should conduct the investigation? Under the auspices of what agency or government should it be carried out? Should it have been in the courts? Before Congress? Before a grand jury?








who do you want to do the investigation? Competant minds have already examined it.

Are you suggesting that some gang of twoofer-approved "experts" like the ones who have posted all these idiotic websites should have access to the evidence?

Maybe Killtown and Dylan and Chris Bollyn?

That would be a laughable mess.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 09:16 PM
You still haven't answered the question as to who should conduct the investigation? Under the auspices of what agency or government should it be carried out? Should it have been in the courts? Before Congress? Before a grand jury?








who do you want to do the investigation? Competant minds have already examined it.

Are you suggesting that some gang of twoofer-approved "experts" like the ones who have posted all these idiotic websites should have access to the evidence?

Maybe Killtown and Dylan and Chris Bollyn?

That would be a laughable mess.
So everyone's coming out for their daily dose huh? Good. If it wasn't for me I think this thread would have died on page two. Glad to keep you all occupied.

You're welcome.

Now I already stated I hoping corsair accepts the nomination to head up the new investigation. Would you like to ride shotgun? It can't wind up anymore of a laughable mess then the official versions put forth to date. But I'm sure the both of you would make a decent run for it.

johnny karate
18th August 2007, 09:19 PM
No. You brought it up. Or did you make it up?


Are you actually going to such great lengths to dodge a question that you are now accusing me of making up the word "outcry"?

I'm just trying to make this easier for you by letting you set the parameters, just so, maybe for once, you'll answer the question. But if nitpicking over the definition of words is what it takes to get us there, then fine. That being said, I'll settle for the standard dictionary definition, and the same goes for every other word in my question as well.

Now, will you please answer the question?

CptColumbo
18th August 2007, 09:23 PM
For the record:
out·cry [n. out-krahy; v., out-krahy] plural -cries, verb, -cried, -cry·ing.
–noun
1. a strong and usually public expression of protest, indignation, or the like.
2. a crying out.
3. loud clamor.
4. an auction.
–verb (used with object)
5. to outdo in crying; cry louder than.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outcry

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 09:31 PM
For the record:
out·cry [n. out-krahy; v., out-krahy] plural -cries, verb, -cried, -cry·ing.
–noun
1. a strong and usually public expression of protest, indignation, or the like.
2. a crying out.
3. loud clamor.
4. an auction.
–verb (used with object)
5. to outdo in crying; cry louder than.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outcry
Well then. I guess you can claim there's been NO outcry.

You can claim.

leftysergeant
18th August 2007, 10:42 PM
Zensmack, are you by chance Killtown in drag? I notice he is active again or the Randi Rhodes Radio Show message board, trying to sell his crap about the McClatchey photograph.

You see, this is one of the things I especially resent about twoofers. It's their humongous egos.

I don't think that you really need any proof that something is wrong, if you see one little anomoly that could be blown into an X-Files-type epic series.

And you don't care who gets hurt in the process.

It runs through the wqhole twoofer movement. Killtown is just one of the most blatantly cynical. Dylan and Torin Wolf are the same way. And Darryl Bradford Smith and Chris Bollyn may actually want a whole ethnic group hurt or anhililated.

Liberal and conservative alike may want to have a gun in hand when we get to the end of the path down which the twoofers are tying to lead us.

Drudgewire
18th August 2007, 10:49 PM
Liberal and conservative alike may want to have a gun in hand when we get to the end of the path down which the twoofers are tying to lead us.
As one who's been accused of being a left wing radical and a right wing radical more times than I can count, and who carries a sidearm with him anywhere that doesn't have a "no concealed weapons" sign posted at their front door... I'm agreeing wholeheartedly with this. :)

leftysergeant
18th August 2007, 11:15 PM
I am an avowed FDR liberal, and armed to the tetth. Right now, in fact, my right shoulder is a little bruised because I was a little careless about how I held my 91/30 today. (How did the Russians end the war still able to do any useful labor after firing those things four six years?)

I first decided it was a really good idea when the white nationalists became interested in carving out my part of the country for a "white homeland." Their popular fiction (which are mostly thinnly-vieled training manuals on small-cell ops) would suggest that, since I am in a mixed marriage, like most of my family, my life isn't worth much if they ever get the upper hand.

I see too much of the patina of white nationalism in the resources from which the twoofers mine their ideas, and in their bullying style, and in their insistance that, if we do not even try to see things in their way, we are being "close-minded" or "resisting logic."

Herr Goebbels must be feeling whatever consolation is allowed to those in hell that there are people like Killtown and Chris Bollyn to carry on for him.

ZENSMACK89
18th August 2007, 11:16 PM
Zensmack, are you by chance Killtown in drag? I notice he is active again or the Randi Rhodes Radio Show message board, trying to sell his crap about the McClatchey photograph.

You see, this is one of the things I especially resent about twoofers. It's their humongous egos.

I don't think that you really need any proof that something is wrong, if you see one little anomoly that could be blown into an X-Files-type epic series.

And you don't care who gets hurt in the process.

It runs through the wqhole twoofer movement. Killtown is just one of the most blatantly cynical. Dylan and Torin Wolf are the same way. And Darryl Bradford Smith and Chris Bollyn may actually want a whole ethnic group hurt or anhililated.

Liberal and conservative alike may want to have a gun in hand when we get to the end of the path down which the twoofers are tying to lead us.
The only thing I can remember about killtown off of the top of my head right now is I think I read an interview there once with the WTC guy who claimed the power down. Other then that I don't really know what you mean by the "in drag" comment and I don't have any other screen names. I have the same one on YouTube.

The your "hurting people" by suggesting a new investigation comments are just a cop out. There's plenty of 9-11 victim's families who are not satisfied with the official version. You and others should stop asserting you speak for all of them when in reality you're just hiding behind them when your arguments run out.

Drudgewire
18th August 2007, 11:28 PM
(How did the Russians end the war still able to do any useful labor after firing those things four six years?
Don't ask me. I'm still trying to figure out how to get more than a hundred rounds out of my Glock 26 without leaving callouses over the thumb of my writing hand. :blush:

Regnad Kcin
19th August 2007, 08:31 AM
... only interested in investigations that confirm their pre-determined judgment.Sounds like NIST to me.You'd be mistaken.I've said it before, but here goes again:

Considering the immeasurable amount of work and resources it would require to pull off an "inside job" as is being proposed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- not only to plan, put into place, execute, and continue to cover up for all time -- evidence for it would be fairly dripping from the trees. Yet there isn't even a drop of morning dew on a single leaf.As I've pointed out before you believe 19 hijackers did it. Was all of Al Queda in on the details? Why didn't we see Al Queda's evidence dripping from the trees enough to stop it from happening?A plan to have a small number of passengers commandeer a number of airplanes and at the last-second intentionally crash them, followed by the proud boasting of the master plotters is going to present a somewhat different risk of discovery compared to a terrifically complex plot by insiders to plan, fund, and enact a series of enormous attacks in two cities, all while masquerading as a terrorist event, and in broad daylight in front of tens of millions of witnesses. Not to mention the need to keep every one of the countless participants quiet forever.Too, that people who would do such a thing for some nefarious reason or reasons haven't performed any follow-up event in order to maintain and further their goals might suggest these people don't exist in the first place.You really did forget about those pesky Anthrax attacks huh? BTW what's the status on that investigation? Any accountability there?Please provide proof that the anthrax scares were related in any way to 9/11.
That none of this seems to register with various CTers is a source of curiosity to me.Maybe it's your memory and interpretation skills that have you curious.And maybe that last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

johnny karate
19th August 2007, 11:40 AM
Well then. I guess you can claim there's been NO outcry.

You can claim.

I'm not "claiming" anything. I am stating it as a simple matter of fact. There has been no outcry from any foreign media outlet or investigative body. Period. If you have information that proves otherwise, then be so kind as to provide it. Otherwise, you're going to need to explain why this curious phenomenon has taken place.

Corsair 115
19th August 2007, 12:14 PM
I think you should do it. No, you should, because you're the one who raised the issue of a lack of a "real investigation." You brought it up, you explain what you meant by it.

Even when I've answered them all multiple times you just find new ways to ask or re-qualify the same question that even if it was answered means absolutely nothing about whether there should be a new investigation into 9-11 or not. No, you haven't answered the question. You offered up a lot of vague mumbo-jumbo and went off on some rants, but failed to simply answer what you meant by "real investigation." It's such a simple question; I can't compehend why you're so reluctant to provide an answer.

Congratulations How do you do it? Are you a detective, an attorney? Maybe an interrogator of some kind? Do you always react so testily to a simple question being asked of you?

You are truly a genius. Should I send you an application for the position of heading up the new investigation into 9-11 that you seem to think I’m personally putting together because I suggested it needs to be done? Be sure to include your salary requirements.Are my feelings supposed to be hurt by this or something? Such a reply has no effect on me and only serves to make you look bad.

Well you can say what you want about Moore but once he to get an idea in his head he usually follows through with it. And if he claims some fire fighters are approaching him with questions about 9-11 some of you here better get your spin cooking. That is if you have any spin left because it sounds like to me it's all used up tired and weak. Your avoidance of answering a pretty simple and straightforward question yet again is duly noted.

firecoins
19th August 2007, 12:29 PM
define an investigation into 9/11 that would suffice. Its simple.

tsig
19th August 2007, 12:38 PM
The only thing I can remember about killtown off of the top of my head right now is I think I read an interview there once with the WTC guy who claimed the power down. Other then that I don't really know what you mean by the "in drag" comment and I don't have any other screen names. I have the same one on YouTube.

The your "hurting people" by suggesting a new investigation comments are just a cop out. There's plenty of 9-11 victim's families who are not satisfied with the official version. You and others should stop asserting you speak for all of them when in reality you're just hiding behind them when your arguments run out.

Why was the steel insulated?

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 02:35 PM
define an investigation into 9/11 that would suffice. Its simple.
Go back and read.

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 02:42 PM
I'm not "claiming" anything. I am stating it as a simple matter of fact. There has been no outcry from any foreign media outlet or investigative body. Period. If you have information that proves otherwise, then be so kind as to provide it. Otherwise, you're going to need to explain why this curious phenomenon has taken place.
Outcry? How about some proof?

How about you find some proof that a investigative body found or that a foreign media outlet has that proves the official versions correct? If you know of this proof I suggest you forward it to the FBI so that they may update their most page to include 9-11 in UBL's profile.

Period

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 02:50 PM
You'd be mistaken.

Your opinion.


You'd be mistaken.A plan to have a small number of passengers commandeer a number of airplanes and at the last-second intentionally crash them, followed by the proud boasting of the master plotters is going to present a somewhat different risk of discovery compared to a terrifically complex plot by insiders to plan, fund, and enact a series of enormous attacks in two cities, all while masquerading as a terrorist event, and in broad daylight in front of tens of millions of witnesses. Not to mention the need to keep every one of the countless participants quiet forever.Please provide proof that the anthrax scares were related in any way to 9/11.And maybe that last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

Sounds like you might have a narrative for a complicated inside job conspiracy. Lets hear it.

Please provide proof that the anthrax scares were related in any way to 9/11.

Jerome Hauers advice to the White House on 9-11. Jerome Hauers ex co-worker Steven Hatfill the one time Anthrax mailer prime suspect.

And maybe that last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

Makes no sense to you? How ironic.

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 02:51 PM
No, you should, because you're the one who raised the issue of a lack of a "real investigation." You brought it up, you explain what you meant by it.

No, you haven't answered the question. You offered up a lot of vague mumbo-jumbo and went off on some rants, but failed to simply answer what you meant by "real investigation." It's such a simple question; I can't compehend why you're so reluctant to provide an answer.

Do you always react so testily to a simple question being asked of you?

Are my feelings supposed to be hurt by this or something? Such a reply has no effect on me and only serves to make you look bad.

Your avoidance of answering a pretty simple and straightforward question yet again is duly noted.
Wow. Simply genius.

fitzgibbon
19th August 2007, 02:53 PM
Outcry? How about some proof?

How about you find some proof that a investigative body found or that a foreign media outlet has that proves the official versions correct? If you know of this proof I suggest you forward it to the FBI so that they may update their most page to include 9-11 in UBL's profile.

Period

zen, baby, t'is incumbent on you to make a positive proof, not on everyone else to disprove what you type. High school physics (which you may or may not be familiar with) seem to back up the official story (no matter how gauling that is to you).

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 02:55 PM
Why was the steel insulated?
Because some fires can burn for hours or days.

fitzgibbon
19th August 2007, 02:57 PM
Because some fires can burn for hours or days.

In a typical high-rise fire?

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 02:59 PM
zen, baby, t'is incumbent on you to make a positive proof, not on everyone else to disprove what you type. High school physics (which you may or may not be familiar with) seem to back up the official story (no matter how gauling that is to you).
So the official version doesn't have to prove UBL involvement?

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 03:00 PM
In a typical high-rise fire?
Sure. Windsor Hotel.

fitzgibbon
19th August 2007, 03:04 PM
So the official version doesn't have to prove UBL involvement?

Actually, no. Not insofar as proving that the WTC could have been brought down without the aid of explosives is concerned. Hell, the WTC could've involved Walt Disney© for as much difference as that makes.

fitzgibbon
19th August 2007, 03:05 PM
Sure. Windsor Hotel.

Wasn't aware that the Windsor Hotel had a plane crash into it at speed

Architect
19th August 2007, 03:06 PM
Sure. Windsor Hotel.

I'm sorry, but can I be quite clear here; are you suggesting that the Windsor fire is relevant to any technical discussion(s) regarding the failure of the World Trade Centre buildings?

Corsair 115
19th August 2007, 06:03 PM
Wow. Simply genius.


Copy & paste response:

Are my feelings supposed to be hurt by this or something? Such a reply has no effect on me and only serves to make you look bad.

Your avoidance of answering a pretty simple and straightforward question yet again is duly noted.

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 06:07 PM
I'm sorry, but can I be quite clear here; are you suggesting that the Windsor fire is relevant to any technical discussion(s) regarding the failure of the World Trade Centre buildings?

Lets cut to the chase.

The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. It is the only skyscraper to have ever suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire. The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

Differences between Windsor and WTC
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete. Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel.

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans

1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours but did not suffer collapse.

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours but did not suffer collapse.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8EAQEL81&show_article=1

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) Dec 6 2005- A military transport plane trying to make an emergency landing slammed into a 10-story apartment building, ripping open the top of the structure and igniting a huge fire. Flames leaped out of windows, from the roof and several other floors of the building as panicked residents fled the Towhid complex in the Azadi suburb of Tehran. Wreckage rained down, hitting a nearby gas station, police said. Cars parked below were smashed by falling debris. At the foot of the blackened building, what appeared to be a pile of wreckage was in flames.

ZENSMACK89
19th August 2007, 06:35 PM
No, you should, because you're the one who raised the issue of a lack of a "real investigation." You brought it up, you explain what you meant by it.

No, you haven't answered the question. You offered up a lot of vague mumbo-jumbo and went off on some rants, but failed to simply answer what you meant by "real investigation." It's such a simple question; I can't compehend why you're so reluctant to provide an answer.

Do you always react so testily to a simple question being asked of you?

Are my feelings supposed to be hurt by this or something? Such a reply has no effect on me and only serves to make you look bad.

Your avoidance of answering a pretty simple and straightforward question yet again is duly noted.

#736

#1443

PhantomWolf
19th August 2007, 06:59 PM
Lets cut to the chase.

Okay let's:

(T)he Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005.

Differences between Windsor and WTC

Size, concrete core, no plane, fire was fought, heavy beam supported concrete and steel floors that stopped the collaspe.

Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat.

Only relatively. Steel is a very poor conductor of heat compared to most metals, almost as bad vs aluminium as concrete is to it. Steel makes a lousy heat sink or conductor, hence why heat conductors and sinks are make from Aluminium or copper, not steel, and why we can use steel for pots and pans that sit on top of a fire or element, but still have a cool handle.

One Meridian Plaza

Had no plane or structural damage. Not a truss and tube in tube structure. Far smaller foot print area. The fire was fought.

The First Interstate Bank Building

Had no plane or structural damage. Not a truss and tube in tube structure. Far smaller foot print area. The fire was fought.

1 New York Plaza

Had no plane or structural damage. Not a truss and tube in tube structure. Far smaller foot print area. The fire was fought.

seeing a pattern here?

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela

Had no plane or structural damage. The fire was fought. Not a truss and tube in tube structure.

and note:

The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete "macroslabs" that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second-floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There's no central core.

Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing.

Oh, and two floors did collaspe, it's just that that collaspe didn't become progressive.

Towhid complex, Tehran.

Fianlly, one that was hit by a plane, and yet, it was a reinforced concrete structure, not steel, and it wasn't a Tube-in-Tube structure either.

so fine let's cut to the chase shall we. All known examples of a Tube in Tube entirely steel structural skyscrapper to have suffered massive trauma followed by mulit-floor, unfought fires, has collapsed, and a number of other steel structures too.

Corsair 115
19th August 2007, 07:01 PM
#736 This is better.

#1443This is not.