U. Mass. Professor calls for new investigation

[orphia nay]

Stand by for twoofers appealing to a new "authority":

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/university_massachusetts_prof_calls_for_new_911_in vestigation.htm

The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations. I arrive at this conclusion largely as the result of the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11. I first met him when he was a speaker at a scholarly conference unrelated to 9/11. He immediately impressed me as a brilliant, outstanding philosopher - theologian - author, a Whiteheadian scholar motivated by an intense curiosity to know everything possible about the world.

On the plane home and for the next two days I did little else but read Griffin's first book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor . From there I went on to read his even more disturbing account of the bogus 9/11 Commission Report, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions , which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.


It is clear to me that David Ray Griffin and his fellow critics are correct...

[snip]

I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.

--

Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD – Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science's Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, in 1999, presented by President William J. Clinton.
[snip]



Same old twoofie mantras, new "expert".

I wonder if she can suggest the format for a new investigation? :rolleyes:

[Alareth]

Geosciences? Does that mean she's a geologist?

If so what are her views on the subject of pyroclastic flows?

[Pardalis]

Don't fall asleep.

[orphia nay]

It looks like Infowars got their article directly from:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Margulis

How long before we have a "Project Steve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)" or something similar on the professionals who support the "official story"? :D

Come to think of it, our "9/11 Expertise" thread on this forum comes close to matching the whole twoof movement's number of experts.

[ref]

One more victim of David Ray Griffin.

[Hokulele]

Are we sure this is for real? AFAIK, she is a biologist, not a geologist.

[orphia nay]

No, I can't say I'm 100% sure this is for real.

But, as Kari Byron (Mythbusters) said, "there are nutjobs and fruitcakes all the way to the top", so it's not totally unlikely.

[CptColumbo]

Great, another person that the "twoofers" will be cutting and pasting from, without really understanding what they are copying.

[Dr Adequate]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Stellafane]

Lynn Margulis happens to be Carl Sagan's first wife. Not sure what, if anything, will be made of that.

[cloudshipsrule]

Once again proving that a complete IDIOT can go on to become a university professor.

[Alt+F4]

Once again proving that a complete IDIOT can go on to become a university professor.

Yup. Even Joseph Goebbels had a Ph.D.

[Professor Yaffle]

Once again proving that a complete IDIOT can go on to become a university professor.

Hardly. I don't think an idiot could be as influential in her field as she obviously is. I think it shows more that people can be incredibly intelligent in one area, but can still be persuaded of something completely untrue if they don't do the research themselves, but rely on another's account and arguments.

[cloudshipsrule]

Rosie O'Donnell is influential, and she's a complete idiot.

I get your point, but Lynn embracing what she has embraced concerning 9/11 does go a long way in proving she is quite the idiot in numerous areas.

[Brainster]

Lynn Margulis happens to be Carl Sagan's first wife. Not sure what, if anything, will be made of that.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

[Professor Yaffle]

Just done a bit of googling. Though undoubtedly knowing her stuff in her own field, it seems she is drawn to the crackpot side of things. She apparently is a bit of an AIDS denier http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/07/dr_lynn_marguli.html (and of course she did come up with what was pretty much the Gaia hypothesis independently of Lovelock...)

[Alferd_Packer]

I agree, she is obviously quite competent in her specialty, but that does not automatically translate into expertise in other specialties.

She also appears to have a number of critics ands has been vocal in a number of political issues before.

As far as I can see, if 9/11 was an issue based on evolutionary biology, then her opinion might mean more than mine. It is not.

[Drudgewire]

Are we sure this is for real? AFAIK, she is a biologist, not a geologist.
Let me assure you, a plane could never hit a giraffe and make him collapse like that. :rolleyes:

[Viper Daimao]

anyone tried emailing her, presenting her with some of the evidence and see if she can be reasoned back to sanity?

[ZENSMACK89]

Stand by for twoofers appealing to a new "authority":

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/university_massachusetts_prof_calls_for_new_911_in vestigation.htm




Same old twoofie mantras, new "expert".

I wonder if she can suggest the format for a new investigation? :rolleyes:
That's right. Who is this fraud? We only need to hear from real scholars like James Meigs, Blanchard, and Gravy.

We need to counter this fraud with something. Why don't we get Brownie or Stickler to write a paper on 9-11? They did a "heck of a job" with FEMA and the mining accident in Utah.

We'll show these twoofers who real experts are and if that doesn't work we'll get Quintere from NIST to write a....

Oh wait a sec...

scratch that last one.

[Drudgewire]

We'll show these twoofers who real experts are and if that doesn't work we'll get Quintere from NIST to write a....

Oh wait a sec...

scratch that last one.
Oh, he's considered an expert. You know what else, here are words you will NEVER hear him say:

It is clear to me that David Ray Griffin and his fellow critics are correct...

[twinstead]

That's right. Who is this fraud? We only need to hear from real scholars like James Meigs, Blanchard, and Gravy.

We need to counter this fraud with something. Why don't we get Brownie or Stickler to write a paper on 9-11? They did a "heck of a job" with FEMA and the mining accident in Utah.

We'll show these twoofers who real experts are and if that doesn't work we'll get Quintere from NIST to write a....

Oh wait a sec...

scratch that last one.

Dude. The list of contributers to the NIST report reads like a who's who of eminent experts in relevant fields. That's kind of what we are talking about.

[Stellafane]

That's right. Who is this fraud? We only need to hear from real scholars like James Meigs, Blanchard, and Gravy...

If the people you cited were the only ones who agreed with us, you'd have a good point. Unfortunately for your nutty little TM, they're not.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, I can't say I'm 100% sure this is for real.

But, as Kari Byron (Mythbusters) said, "there are nutjobs and fruitcakes all the way to the top", so it's not totally unlikely.
On a related note, Why People Believe Weird Things 2nd ed, new chapter Why Smart People Believe Weird Things.

[MarkyX]

That's right. Who is this fraud? We only need to hear from real scholars like James Meigs, Blanchard, and Gravy.


I just would like to say that Blanchard was down there at Ground Zero examining the debris and taking photographs. He was part of the investigation team and deals with controlled demolition for a living.

Where was David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, and Dylan Avery? Not at Ground Zero. Yet we are supposed to take their opinions seriously?

[Drudgewire]

On a related note, Why People Believe Weird Things 2nd ed, new chapter Why Smart People Believe Weird Things.
I was going to bring that up but I haven't gotten to that chapter yet. :o

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I was going to bring that up but I haven't gotten to that chapter yet. :o
It's a worthy addition to the book.

Additionally, I would like to point out, that the end of the article in question is a blatent appeal to false authority. The individual's position, degree, etc are not relevent to the information being discussed anymore so that if I were to end my posts with "Senior Engineer (Database Administrator)".

[ZENSMACK89]

Dude. The list of contributers to the NIST report reads like a who's who of eminent experts in relevant fields. That's kind of what we are talking about.
Really... dude?

Would Quintere be part of that "who's who"?

[Drudgewire]

Really... dude?

Would Quintere be part of that "who's who"?
Yes, and he firmly believes that every one of the conspiracy theories is complete and utter fantasy.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Really... dude?

Would Quintere be part of that "who's who"?
Please don't move the goalposts. It's not polite, and it won't go unnoticed on this forum.

[ZENSMACK89]

If the people you cited were the only ones who agreed with us, you'd have a good point. Unfortunately for your nutty little TM, they're not.
Yeah it kind of makes one wonder why Meigs and the rest weighed in on it at all.

You know... since the 9-11 commission and NIST put it all to rest so neatly.

Hamilton: "I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could. Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future. 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. "

Quintiere: “In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

[ZENSMACK89]

Please don't move the goalposts. It's not polite, and it won't go unnoticed on this forum.
Oh I'm sorry I though some of you were pointing to peoples qualifications.

"Are we sure this is for real? AFAIK, she is a biologist, not a geologist."

[ZENSMACK89]

I just would like to say that Blanchard was down there at Ground Zero examining the debris and taking photographs. He was part of the investigation team and deals with controlled demolition for a living.

Where was David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, and Dylan Avery? Not at Ground Zero. Yet we are supposed to take their opinions seriously?
So anyone who was at ground zero is an expert?

[Mooseman]

Who she is and her own field of expertise, do Not in any way change the facts.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You appear to be confused as to the series of posts that led to my comment. Allow me to refresh your memory.

That's right. Who is this fraud? We only need to hear from real scholars like James Meigs, Blanchard, and Gravy.

We need to counter this fraud with something. Why don't we get Brownie or Stickler to write a paper on 9-11? They did a "heck of a job" with FEMA and the mining accident in Utah.

We'll show these twoofers who real experts are and if that doesn't work we'll get Quintere from NIST to write a....

Oh wait a sec...

scratch that last one.

Dude. The list of contributers to the NIST report reads like a who's who of eminent experts in relevant fields. That's kind of what we are talking about.

Really... dude?

Would Quintere be part of that "who's who"?

Please don't move the goalposts. It's not polite, and it won't go unnoticed on this forum.

Oh I'm sorry I though some of you were pointing to peoples qualifications.

"Are we sure this is for real? AFAIK, she is a biologist, not a geologist."

This tangent is not about peoples qualifications, it does highlight your confirmation bias in disregarding all contributors to the report aside from those you wish to cherry-pick.

[Hellbound]

ZENS:

People were pointing out Appeal to Authority fallacies.

The opinion of a biologist on a physics issue, for example, has no more weight than my opinion on a physics issue. This is a logical fallcay called Appeal to Authority (more accurately Appeal to False Authority).

The opinion of a biologist on a biology issue, however, is a perfectly valid piece of evidence.

Thus, in regards to the WTC, for example, those whose academic credentials give weight to their opinions are structural engineers, architects, physicists, and similar. Those whose opinions do not add weight are English professors, dental technicians, and biologists.

IN any case, the stance of an expert is not proof ina nd of itself, simply another piece of evidence. Adn even them the claims of those experts can (and should) be examined critically for logical consistency and consistency with other evidence (especially the abundant physical evidence available).

[Drudgewire]

Yeah it kind of makes one wonder why Meigs and the rest weighed in on it at all.

You know... since the 9-11 commission and NIST put it all to rest so neatly.

Hamilton: "A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. "Many say the government planned the whole thing. Of course, we don't think the evidence leads that way at all."

SOURCE (http://newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=55)


Quintiere: “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

SOURCE (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm)

Fixed those for you. ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So anyone who was at ground zero is an expert?
Strawman. MarkyX was clearly stating that hands-on analysis of the evidence in question lends additional value to the opinions of those that have done such work. He in no way stated that ones mere presence there did any such thing.

[johnny karate]

Really... dude?

Would Quintere be part of that "who's who"?

ZEN, far be it from me to aid you in your sad flailing attempts to bolster your claims, but sometimes my compassion just gets the best of me. So here's a little pointer: It behooves you not to bring up experts that disagree with your position, as Quintiere has clearly stated he does. That list is long enough already. Just stick to your usual desperate struggles to give credibility to unqualified loons, who while being wholly ignorant, at the very least actually agree with you.

[Jonnyclueless]

Quintere, yes the guy who helped PM debunk all the conspiracy claims.


The reason this prof is falling for this crap is because she is assuming that Griffin is telling the truth. If she had access to the corrections while reading his book, then she would likely have a different opinion. She'll have to find out the hard way that most of what he writes simply is not true.

[Pipirr]

Lynn Margulis is excellent, although controversial even in her own speciality. When I was a fresh young biologist, she was an inspiration. This is desperately sad.

Ah well. I'll always have "Five Kingdoms".

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Lynn Margulis: Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11 . . ..

Argument from credulity? She does not seem to be very sensible.

[ZENSMACK89]

ZENS:

People were pointing out Appeal to Authority fallacies.

The opinion of a biologist on a physics issue, for example, has no more weight than my opinion on a physics issue. This is a logical fallcay called Appeal to Authority (more accurately Appeal to False Authority).

The opinion of a biologist on a biology issue, however, is a perfectly valid piece of evidence.

Thus, in regards to the WTC, for example, those whose academic credentials give weight to their opinions are structural engineers, architects, physicists, and similar. Those whose opinions do not add weight are English professors, dental technicians, and biologists.

IN any case, the stance of an expert is not proof ina nd of itself, simply another piece of evidence. Adn even them the claims of those experts can (and should) be examined critically for logical consistency and consistency with other evidence (especially the abundant physical evidence available).
What kind of an appeal is an appeal to a publicist who used to work for Entertainment Weekly?

Or an appeal for a so-called demo expert whose exact area of education can't really be nailed down but writes a paper on the WTC the Governments "Counter Misinformation Team" likes to peddle?

Why the need for the publicity and the attacks on scholars and their credentials if the official version is so obviously complete and correct?

Why the need for a campaign to sell it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Lynn Margulis:

Argument from credulity? She does not seem to be very sensible.
Also, the statement you quoted is a strawman, and rather racist in tone.

[Drudgewire]

Why the need for the publicity and the attacks on scholars and their credentials if the official version is so obviously complete and correct?
Because said scholars continue to use faulty and fraudulent evidence outside their fields of expertise to push a version that is so obviously inaccurate and incorrect.

[Jonnyclueless]

Zen, should you have to go into open heart surgery, I am sure you would have no complaint if a plastic surgeon did the operation right? I mean why would you have a problem with a scholar right?

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen, should you have to go into open heart surgery, I am sure you would have no complaint if a plastic surgeon did the operation right? I mean why would you have a problem with a scholar right?
Jonny... what was that name again?

[DavidJames]

Jonny... what was that name again?

It was a serious question based on extending your logic into another area. The fact that you are unable to recognize it or chose to ignore it and reply instead flippantly, is quite telling.

[ZENSMACK89]

It was a serious question based on extending your logic into another area. The fact that you are unable to recognize it or chose to ignore it and reply instead flippantly, is quite telling.
Oh I'm sorry. What qualifies Meigs or Blanchard as experts in anything in relation to a surgeon and how he got his expertise? How did they get that expertise?

[Jonnyclueless]

Jonny... what was that name again?

I'm sorry, were you trying to be clever again? Please let us know.

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh I'm sorry. What qualifies Meigs or Blanchard as experts in anything in relation to a surgeon and how he got his expertise? How did they get that expertise?

No the point is that when it comes to credentials, you are simply exploiting someone HAVING credentials. You could care less if they are in the proper field of discussion.

For people looking for facts, they go not simply by credentials, but by ones credentials AND their work. Whch is why no one here is going "Oh look what this Theologian just said on the structural engineering issue!". Every time you see someone with a PHD, a light bulb goes off and suddenly they are perfectly qualified. Now we don't doubt that if you actually had an expert in the proper fields that you wouldn't jump on that like a hot potato. but since you don't, you have to make due with what you can get. But it doesn't change the fact that you simply start with the cart before the horse and use experts simply as trophies to try and bolster what you already concluded long before having any expert endorsements.

So like I said, I guess you wouldn't care about going into open heart surgery using someone who has high credentials but just not in the field of heart surgery? Because that is what you keep doing here.

[bonkey]

Zen, should you have to go into open heart surgery, I am sure you would have no complaint if a plastic surgeon did the operation right? I mean why would you have a problem with a scholar right?

A more relevant question would perhaps be who he would believe - the heart specialist telling him he needed the operation in the first place, or any of the high-energy physicist, the geologist, or the professor of old and middle English who told him he was fine and that it was all just some conspiracy to silence him by having an accident on the operating table.

[CurtC]

Even her thoughts in her own field of biology show that she's pretty flaky:

She does, however, hold a negative view of Neo-Darwinism, as she believes that history will ultimately judge the theory as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology." She also believes that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is a complete funk."

Sounds like she's like the Judy Wood of biology.

[Drudgewire]

For people looking for facts, they go not simply by credentials, but by ones credentials AND their work.
And by whether the findings are supported by others with the same or better credentials. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/eng101.gif

[beachnut]

That's right. Who is this fraud? We only need to hear from real scholars like James Meigs, Blanchard, and Gravy.

We need to counter this fraud with something. Why don't we get Brownie or Stickler to write a paper on 9-11? They did a "heck of a job" with FEMA and the mining accident in Utah.

We'll show these twoofers who real experts are and if that doesn't work we'll get Quintere from NIST to write a....

Oh wait a sec...

scratch that last one.
Are you sad you have no facts to support idiotic ideas from 9/11 truth. You seem kind of upset. Lack of facts could be your problem. Stop posting tripe and get to the big facts you are hiding in your lock box. Hurry up and show us all about the truth of 9/11. Stop getting upset and show us the facts to support 9/11 truth ideas; which so far are just a set of misleading tripe and junk science. I still have not found a singe person in 9/11 truth with facts to support their conclusions, just junk, hearsay and lies.

[beachnut]

Oh I'm sorry. What qualifies Meigs or Blanchard as experts in anything in relation to a surgeon and how he got his expertise? How did they get that expertise?
OMG, she mentions Griffin. Griffin has zero facts to support his ideas, mainly gathered from hearsay. Hearsay support? This lady is a kook when it comes to understanding 9/11. Sorry but if your expert displays irrational thinking on 9/11 they are done for 9/11.

You have to use judgment and knowledge to evaluate the events of 9/11. You use judgment and knowledge to see she is a nut case on 9/11. She may be the best at something, but she presents no factual evidence and just plugs the biggest bs artist in 9/11, Griffin.

You need some judgment and knowledge on 9/11 and you are not showing improvement reaching that state of enlightenment.

[Hokulele]

Lynn Margulis:

Argument from credulity? She does not seem to be very sensible.


I am still tempted to call BS on this whole thing. The only source I have seen so far is a statement "issued to this website" and the use of "grizzly" as opposed to "grisly" seems out of character.

[ZENSMACK89]

No the point is that when it comes to credentials, you are simply exploiting someone HAVING credentials. You could care less if they are in the proper field of discussion.

For people looking for facts, they go not simply by credentials, but by ones credentials AND their work. Whch is why no one here is going "Oh look what this Theologian just said on the structural engineering issue!". Every time you see someone with a PHD, a light bulb goes off and suddenly they are perfectly qualified. Now we don't doubt that if you actually had an expert in the proper fields that you wouldn't jump on that like a hot potato. but since you don't, you have to make due with what you can get. But it doesn't change the fact that you simply start with the cart before the horse and use experts simply as trophies to try and bolster what you already concluded long before having any expert endorsements.

So like I said, I guess you wouldn't care about going into open heart surgery using someone who has high credentials but just not in the field of heart surgery? Because that is what you keep doing here.
No. And again right back at you. If you had enough experts in the proper fields to support the official version you wouldn't need the likes of Meigs or the Government Team of Misinformation. What field of expertise has not weighed in against the official version in one way or another? NIST is one version now challenged by none other then a NIST insider. The heads of the 9-11 commission have written an entire book on the challenges they encountered when investigating 9-11 with one of them going as far as to claim they were set up to fail. What else is there FEMA? The same FEMA that handled Katrina with the expertise, leadership, and credentials of Brownie?

So when will Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD be booked on FoxNews to be discredited and shouted down by the likes of O’Riley or Hannity whose field of expertise is what?

[Drudgewire]

What field of expertise has not weighed in against the official version in one way or another?
Umm... all of them?

Oh wait, forgot the truck driver and nurse. :p

[twinstead]

Oh for crying out loud Zen I can't BELIEVE you are still claiming that this 'NIST insider' supports your theory!

He supports the official story, dude. His problems with NIST have nothing to do with your fantasy.

How many times do you have to be reminded of that?

[ZENSMACK89]

Umm... all of them?

Oh wait, forgot the truck driver and nurse. :p
That's right. It seems almost everyone has some kind of problem with it.

[ZENSMACK89]

Oh for crying out loud Zen I can't BELIEVE you are still claiming that this 'NIST insider' supports your theory!

He supports the official story, dude. His problems with NIST have nothing to do with your fantasy.

How many times do you have to be reminded of that?
What's my fantasy?

[Drudgewire]

That's right. It seems almost everyone has some kind of problem with it.
Oh, I see what you were asking now. I foolishly thought you meant "anyone in their own field of expertise who thinks the facts actually support a conspiracy."

My bad. :rolleyes:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No. And again right back at you. If you had enough experts in the proper fields to support the official version you wouldn't need the likes of Meigs or the Government Team of Misinformation.

Meigs is a journalist. Reporting is his job. For the PM article and subsequent book, he and his team interviewed more than 300 experts in fields relating specifically to the issues being discussed.

The reason we have Meigs is because we have the experts.

You don't.

What else is there FEMA? The same FEMA that handled Katrina with the expertise, leadership, and credentials of Brownie?

Speaking of Meigs and Popular Mechanics...

MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

- Popular Mechanics, Debunking The Myths of Katrina, March 2006 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2)

[HyJinX]

What's my fantasy?

Mine is Jessica Biel

[ZENSMACK89]

A more relevant question would perhaps be who he would believe - the heart specialist telling him he needed the operation in the first place, or any of the high-energy physicist, the geologist, or the professor of old and middle English who told him he was fine and that it was all just some conspiracy to silence him by having an accident on the operating table.
No what's relevant is I wouldn't ask a heart magazine editor to perform surgery on me based on his editorial skills.

[Drudgewire]

Mine is Jessica Biel
Mine too, but it also involves watching the Lions play in the Super Bowl.
:cry1

[ZENSMACK89]

Meigs is a journalist. Reporting is his job. For the PM article and subsequent book, he and his team interviewed more than 300 experts in fields relating specifically to the issues being discussed.

The reason we have Meigs is because we have the experts.

You don't.

Speaking of Meigs and Popular Mechanics...


- Popular Mechanics, Debunking The Myths of Katrina, March 2006 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=2)

So what's your point? Meigs performed spin for FEMA also? How surprising.

[HyJinX]

Substitute the Packer for the Lions and I believe we're living the same fantasy.

[ZENSMACK89]

Mine too, but it also involves watching the Lions play in the Super Bowl.
:cry1
HyJinx probably has a better chance with his fantasy then you do with yours.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Mine too, but it also involves watching the Lions play in the Super Bowl.
:cry1

Jessica Simspon and the Oilers bagging a sixth Stanley Cup, here.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So what's your point? Meigs performed spin for FEMA also? How surprising.

Federal and state agencies pulled off a minor miracle in thier post-Katrina rescue operations.

Deal with it.

[ZENSMACK89]

HyJinx probably has a better chance with his fantasy then you do with yours.
Maybe if you guys got the editor from Sports Illustrated to play QB for your teams you would have a chance at seeing your fantasy come true.

But I doubt it.

[Drudgewire]

So what's your point?

So how did you determine whom to interview? What was the reporting process like?

Some critics claim that we "cherry-picked" sources who would be favorable to our "agenda." The fact is, for each question we studied, we simply approached the top experts in that particular field. The irony is that we were unable to find anyone with any degree of authority, in the public or private sector—first responders or university professors, engineers or flight instructors—who agreed with the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4220721.html?page=6

[ZENSMACK89]

Federal and state agencies pulled off a minor miracle in thier post-Katrina rescue operations.

Deal with it.
I believe the people from New Orleans are still dealing with it thanks to the minor miracle.

It was a minor response all right.

[Drudgewire]

I believe the people from New Orleans are still dealing with it thanks to the minor miracle.

It was a minor response all right.
Yes, if twoofers ran the country instead of the evil NWO you wouldn't even know a Category 5 hurricane ever hit the city today. :rolleyes:

[ZENSMACK89]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4220721.html?page=6

Bare assertions.

[twinstead]

So what's your point? Meigs performed spin for FEMA also? How surprising.


Beautiful. The way you answered the question raised your dancing around questions to a fine art; that was a nice little pirouette!

Oh, and BTW your little fantasy is that you think 911 was an inside job.

[cloudshipsrule]

If you had enough experts in the proper fields to support the official version you wouldn't need the likes of Meigs or the Government Team of Misinformation.

Here's the difference zen.

When the official version of 9/11 (and I'm only speaking of the collapse mechanisms of the WTC's) is scrutinized by engineers and scientists, the general theories tend to remain intact, while possibly being slightly tweaked to better reflect more accurate calculations.

On the other side of the spectrum of reality, under scientific scrutiny, EVERY conspiracy version falls to pieces because those theories are CRAP to begin with.

Got it?? It's really not a hard concept.

[johnny karate]

ZEN, you and your Truther cronies need to get together and decide once and for all whether or not expertise in the relevant fields is a requisite for analyzing the events of 9/11. Because your little movement can't go back and forth between telling us that most of your assertions are common-sense based and then decrying the opinions of magazine editors and tour guides as insubstantial due to lack of qualifications.

The bad news for you, however, is no matter which position you choose, it won't turn out well for you:

Experts are important: You fail.
Reason: You have none.

Experts are not important: You fail.
Reason: Utter idiocy.

[ZENSMACK89]

Beautiful. The way you answered the question raised your dancing around questions to a fine art; that was a nice little pirouette!

Oh, and BTW your little fantasy is that you think 911 was an inside job.
We would need a real investigation to determine that.

[mortimer]

We would need a real investigation to determine that.

Get to it then. What's stopping you?

[ZENSMACK89]

Here's the difference zen.

When the official version of 9/11 (and I'm only speaking of the collapse mechanisms of the WTC's) is scrutinized by engineers and scientists, the general theories tend to remain intact, while possibly being slightly tweaked to better reflect more accurate calculations.

On the other side of the spectrum of reality, under scientific scrutiny, EVERY conspiracy version falls to pieces because those theories are CRAP to begin with.

Got it?? It's really not a hard concept.
We have them. You just discredit them and try to counter with the likes of Meigs and incomplete investigations.

[beachnut]

Zen needs to talk to himself and decide who is posting what

[Drudgewire]

Bare assertions.
lol

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I believe the people from New Orleans are still dealing with it thanks to the minor miracle.

Yeah, they are alive to deal with it.

Sorry if that is an "Inconvenient Truth" for you and your little fantasy world.

[ZENSMACK89]

Get to it then. What's stopping you?
Subpoena power.

[Rika]

... I'm sorry, but zensmack89, have you ever been in the aftermath of a hurricane? I'll give you a hint: It's a mess. And as New Orleans was under sea level, once those levee's broke, that's it, they're flooded.

[HyJinX]

Subpoena power.

OR could it be lack of evidence to support the need for subpoena power?

[ZENSMACK89]

Yeah, they are alive to deal with it.

Sorry if that is an "Inconvenient Truth" for you and your little fantasy world.
They're all alive and accounted for huh? Tell me more about MY fantasy?

[mortimer]

Subpoena power.

So you want the government involved in your independent investigation? Isn't that what happened the first time around?

[CptColumbo]

No what's relevant is I wouldn't ask a heart magazine editor to perform surgery on me based on his editorial skills.This is the most confusing thing I've seen from you yet.

1. If you look at most medical publications you'll find that they have Mediacl Doctors and RNs on the editorial staff.

2. If this is a crack at Popular Mechanics, you are ignoring a few things.
a. More than 300 experts in the relevant fields were consulted in the writing of the piece.
b. None of those experts have come forward to say their data was altered.
c. No one in the truth movement has been able to dispute the facts presented in the article. They're best attempts involve "poisoning the well."

3. Despite what you write above, you seem to be using blog writers as your experts.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

They're all alive and accounted for huh? Tell me more about MY fantasy?

*Sigh*

Argument from incredulity.

An honest person would admit he's got nothing.

[cloudshipsrule]

We have them.

Bullcrap. Please point me to one truther, SCIENTIFIC fact that has not been disproven by PROPER scientific method.

[ZENSMACK89]

OR could it be lack of evidence to support the need for subpoena power?
No even the 9-11 commission was given limited subpoena power by Dubya that had to pass a majority vote within the commission which would just fall on party lines. Dubya and Cheney refused to testify under oath or even separately.

As far as what NORAD testified to this is what Kean had to say about it.

“We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us," Commission Chair Thomas H. Kean said. "It was just so far from the truth."

It was then left by the commission after much debate to the Justice Department and if they wanted to purse any of it along a criminal line. They did nothing.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No even the 9-11 commission was given limited subpoena power by Dubya that had to pass a majority vote within the commission which would just fall on party lines. Dubya and Cheney refused to testify under oath or even separately.


Because you know if they were put under oath, that would make it impossible for them to lie.

It would be like tying them up with wonder womans lasso!

[ZENSMACK89]

So you want the government involved in your independent investigation? Isn't that what happened the first time around?
No the problem with the first commission is the same problem we would have had if Hitler lived through WWII so we appointed him to put together and set the ground rules for an investigation into the Holocaust.

I don’t think the 9-11 commission was a bad idea just the way it was executed and used as more of a whitewash then an investigation. Who has been held accountable for anything? I just would have liked to see more relevant experts on the panel and then untie their hands and give them real power to enforce consequences to anyone who doesn’t cooperate.

Anyone.

[ZENSMACK89]

Because you know if they were put under oath, that would make it impossible for them to lie.

It would be like tying them up with wonder womans lasso!

They couldn't all consistently tell the same lies separately under oath. They would slip up. They know it or they wouldn’t have had a problem with it. Why do you think NORAD and the FAA didn't have the same story?

[Drudgewire]

No the problem with the first commission is the same problem we would have had if Hitler lived through WWII so we appointed him to put together and set the ground rules for an investigation into the Holocaust.
Hitler would have appointed a bi-partisan committee to investigate? Man, maybe I misjudged the guy. :rolleyes:

[uk_dave]

Bare assertions.

Prove it wrong. Shouldn't be too difficult, right?

C'mon, let's see your proof.

[ZENSMACK89]

Hitler would have appointed a bi-partisan committee to investigate? Man, maybe I misjudged the guy. :rolleyes:

He could have if the granting of a subpoena had to be voted on and get a majority.

[ZENSMACK89]

Prove it wrong. Shouldn't be too difficult, right?

C'mon, let's see your proof.
It's already been done.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

[johnny karate]

It's already been done by a completely unqualified theologian.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X


Fixed.

[uk_dave]

It's already been done.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
oooops I think you just posted a link to a book written by some guy who doesn't appear to have any qualifications in the field of study. Must have been an error on your part.

Please provide your evidence that PM lied when it said it couldn't find any professionals/academics specialising in the field of study who supported the claims of the 911 CT.

[T.A.M.]

Let me tell you, 90% of the so called experts are merely liberal profs with an anti govt agenda, and Griffin is the mouth piece...EOS.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

He could have if the granting of a subpoena had to be voted on and get a majority.
And had complete control of the press so no one in the opposing party had an avenue to voice their concerns about how the truth was being polluted for political gain.

You know, like Bush has with the NY Times. :rolleyes:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

They couldn't all consistently tell the same lies separately under oath.

Yes, Zenny, I'm afraid they would. Even in this universe cover stories are concocted and ironed out before any covert op is given the go-ahead.

They would slip up.

Speaking as a disappointed Bush supporter, his complete and utter lack of skill in public speaking is well known. The casual violence Bush regularly inflicts on the english language makes english teachers blood run cold.

Any discrepancies would be easily written off as dubya tripping over his tounge again.

Why do you think NORAD and the FAA didn't have the same story?

Because there was no "inside job". No inside job = no effort to create a coherent cover story.

[Dr Harry Rein]

Yeah it kind of makes one wonder why Meigs and the rest weighed in on it at all.

You know... since the 9-11 commission and NIST put it all to rest so neatly.

Hamilton: "I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could. Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future. 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. "

Quintiere: “In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


Where do you get the idea that just because two of the authors admit that the reports are not perfect, that this implies that there was a huge government-sponsored conspiracy? After all, even Bermas and Avery admitted that were mistakes in Loose Change. Does that mean that these two now believe in the official story?

[beachnut]

It's already been done.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
the hearsay king writes a hearsay book of junk, wow,

you do not need that book, just make stuff up, save money

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes, Zenny, I'm afraid they would. Even in this universe cover stories are concocted and ironed out before any covert op is given the go-ahead.



Speaking as a disappointed Bush supporter, his complete and utter lack of skill in public speaking is well known. The casual violence Bush regularly inflicts on the english language makes english teachers blood run cold.

Any discrepancies would be easily written off as dubya tripping over his tounge again.



Because there was no "inside job". No inside job = no effort to create a coherent cover story.

Yeah yeah very nice. Nice excuse that is. But if any of this were true then they wouldn’t have had any reason to refuse to testify under oath separately when they were asked.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yeah yeah very nice. Nice excuse that is. But if any of this were true then they wouldn’t have had any reason to refuse to testify under oath separately when they were asked.

You mean if 9/11 was an inside job, that Bush wouldn't have any reason to refuse to testify?

Isn't that what I just said?

[ZENSMACK89]

Where do you get the idea that just because two of the authors admit that the reports are not perfect, that this implies that there was a huge government-sponsored conspiracy? After all, even Bermas and Avery admitted that were mistakes in Loose Change. Does that mean that these two now believe in the official story?
I think the way you know that loose change has admitted to making mistakes is becuase they have revised it when that's been the case.

So when will the 911 commission report revised edition be coming out?

[mortimer]

He could have if the granting of a subpoena had to be voted on and get a majority.
How many potential witnesses were voted on and did not receive the majority?

[ZENSMACK89]

You mean if 9/11 was an inside job, that Bush wouldn't have any reason to refuse to testify?

Isn't that what I just said?
He would have every reason to fear that his account wouldn't completely match Cheney’s whose account didn't match Mineta's whose account didn't match the FAA whose account didn't match NORAD who’s...

See how it works?

[Dr Harry Rein]

I think the way you know that loose change has admitted to making mistakes is becuase they have revised it when that's been the case.

So when will the 911 commission report revised edition be coming out?

Yes, any day now....and I'm sure that they will admit that the whole thing is an inside job!

[johnny karate]

I think the way you know that loose change has been caught making up crap is becuase they were mocked mercilessly by people much smarter than they are for doing so.


Fixed.

[Regnad Kcin]

That's right. Who is this fraud? We only need to hear from real scholars like James Meigs, Blanchard, and Gravy...And your expertise again is..?

[johnny karate]

He would have every reason to fear that his account wouldn't completely match Cheney’s whose account didn't match Mineta's whose account didn't match the FAA whose account didn't match NORAD who’s...

See how it works?


Imagine that. Different people have different recollections of an enormously chaotic event. There is no way something like that could happen unless these people were involved in a massive and complex conspiracy that managed to cover every little detail except getting their stories straight.

[ZENSMACK89]

How many potential witnesses were voted on and did not receive the majority?
How would I know? Is that the point? I do know this...

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI
John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI
Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA
Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA
Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA
Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Cheney’s whose account didn't match Mineta's whose account didn't match the FAA whose account didn't match NORAD who’s...

No inside job = no attempt at making up a coherent cover story.

See how that works?

[johnny karate]

How would I know? Is that the point? I do know this...

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI
John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI
Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA
Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA
Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA
Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA


And these people had such powerful and compelling evidence in support of the CT that they have done... absolutley nothing to get their stories out in the intervening six years.

[ZENSMACK89]

Imagine that. Different people have different recollections of an enormously chaotic event. There is no way something like that could happen unless these people were involved in a massive and complex conspiracy that managed to cover every little detail except getting their stories straight.
Apparently they didn't need to get their stories straight in an investigation into the deaths of almost 3000 Americans. It' seems to be good enough as is for the likes of you.

[funk de fino]

They couldn't all consistently tell the same lies separately under oath. They would slip up. They know it or they wouldn’t have had a problem with it. Why do you think NORAD and the FAA didn't have the same story?

You do know that if they were seperated and got everything word perfect that it would be more suspicious?

Research the Birmingham 6 and the police notes/statements

I think this is hilarious that they think that cause Bush was not under oath it made any difference to anything. They spoke to him for 4 hours and he never once refused to answer any questions from the commission. Do you think this complete and utter oaf of a man could fool the 3 members of the commission for four hours just cause Cheney was giving him nods and winks?

Also when they reviewd the NORAD tapes they found that NORAD had done nothing wrong according to their SOPs?

As for Mineta he is the exception to evryone else not the other way about

[johnny karate]

Almost everything I say is complete nonsense, but I just can't seem to stop clicking the "Post Reply" button!


Fixed.

[beachnut]

He would have every reason to fear that his account wouldn't completely match Cheney’s whose account didn't match Mineta's whose account didn't match the FAA whose account didn't match NORAD who’s...

See how it works?
NO, if you have facts, you have a Pulitzer Prize. Simple stuff. If you have the information and evidence, you have it. You have zero. Zilch

[ZENSMACK89]

No inside job = no attempt at making up a coherent cover story.

See how that works?
Well I guess we should start letting off people suspected of conspiring to murder when they don't have their stories straight right? Because of course this would mean they didn't do it for they most certainly would have got their stories straight before getting on the stand. I mean no one wants to go to prison.

Got anymore scary evidence like this garbage?

[ZENSMACK89]

And these people had such powerful and compelling evidence in support of the CT that they have done... absolutley nothing to get their stories out in the intervening six years.
You never heard of any of these people? How surprising.

[beachnut]

You never heard of any of these people? How surprising.
You present no facts to back up anything. When will you stop posting hearsay bs and try a fact? Just slow down and show a fact from one of these people that means anything to the ideas pushed by 9/11 truth. You can't, so what is your point? Why not just say you have no facts but you still think this or that. What do you think happened on 9/11, the whole story. You do not have a story to tell you have nothing to say about 9/11, you get all your ideas from other and have no support to back it up.

[Drudgewire]

Well I guess we should start letting off people suspected of conspiring to murder when they don't have their stories straight right? Because of course this would mean they didn't do it for they most certainly would have got their stories straight before getting on the stand. I mean no one wants to go to prison.

Got anymore scary evidence like this garbage?
I love your leaps in logic. If someone has nothing to do with the murder, they still need to get their facts straight with the people who do?

:boggled:

[mortimer]

How would I know? Is that the point?

Dunno, you're the one who brought it up. If you don't have any evidence that partisanship on the part of the 9/11 Commission members resulted in witnesses being skipped over, then I think maybe you should drop that part of your argument for a new investigation, yes?

So your other argument for a new investigation is that Bush and Cheney were not forced to testify under oath seperately, right?

[Regnad Kcin]

He would have every reason to fear that his account wouldn't completely match Cheney’s whose account didn't match Mineta's whose account didn't match the FAA whose account didn't match NORAD who’s...

See how it works?Not me. But then I've never been so rabidly eager to pronounce guilt on others for my baseless fantasies that it makes the propeller on top of my beanie spin at supersonic speeds, either.

[ZENSMACK89]

You present no facts to back up anything. When will you stop posting hearsay bs and try a fact? Just slow down and show a fact from one of these people that means anything to the ideas pushed by 9/11 truth. You can't, so what is your point? Why not just say you have no facts but you still think this or that. What do you think happened on 9/11, the whole story. You do not have a story to tell you have nothing to say about 9/11, you get all your ideas from other and have no support to back it up.
So that whole list of whistleblowers is just made up people huh?

Why don't you tell everyone here how subpoena power worked in regards to the commission and who made up those rules?

"I think the commission feels unanimously that it's some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency," - Kean

So is Cheney Dubya's minder?

lol

[ZENSMACK89]

I love your leaps in logic. If someone has nothing to do with the murder, they still need to get their facts straight with the people who do?

:boggled:
That's right. So why didn't they have their facts straight in regards to 9-11?

[ZENSMACK89]

Dunno, you're the one who brought it up. If you don't have any evidence that partisanship on the part of the 9/11 Commission members resulted in witnesses being skipped over, then I think maybe you should drop that part of your argument for a new investigation, yes?

So your other argument for a new investigation is that Bush and Cheney were not forced to testify under oath seperately, right?
I didn't claim anyone passed over but I did give you a list of people who had relevant info who were ignored.

I simply pointed to the subpoena rule put in place by Dubya. Is that not a fact? Why did they need that rule?

[DavidJames]

So that whole list of whistleblowers is just made up people huh?
So is Cheney Dubya's minder?
why didn't they have their facts straight in regards to 9-11?
Is that not a fact?
Why did they need that rule?

More questions, eh Sparky? Over 650 posts in less then a month and none of them include evidence to support an “inside job”.

Keep up the good work, I'm proud of ya son.

[Drudgewire]

How would I know? Is that the point? I do know this...

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI
John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI
Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA
Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA
Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA
Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA
Oddly, none of them seem to support any conspiracy theories, only that there were failures in following up on intelligence before the attacks... which we already know.

But, like Quintiere, it doesn't matter they in no way support your side. Just the fact they have issues with the report means that they're champions of the twoof movement.

Hell of a cover-up you've exposed here. :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

So that whole list of whistleblowers is just made up people huh?

Why don't you tell everyone here how subpoena power worked in regards to the commission and who made up those rules?

"I think the commission feels unanimously that it's some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency," - Kean

So is Cheney Dubya's minder?

lolJust pick one person and tell us what his or her evidence is and show the support for it and how it fits in to 9/11, and 9/11 truth.

You are not doing anything but running my post count up asking you to show some evidence to even support one of the people you listed. Your efforts are a thin veneer of bs hearsay so far. Show some substance.

[mortimer]

I didn't claim anyone passed over but I did give you a list of people who had relevant info who were ignored.

I simply pointed to the subpoena rule put in place by Dubya. Is that not a fact? Why did they need that rule?

I guess they didn't need that rule (since there's no evidence it was ever used), but you listed that rule as part of what was wrong with the original commission, along with Bush and Cheney not being forced to testify seperately under oath.

Please spell out exactly what you feel was wrong with the first commission that could be repaired with another.

[DGM]

Am I missing something here? What new insight has she brought to the table? It seems like she is just repeating the same old worn out junk.

Did she discover something new?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How would I know? Is that the point? I do know this...

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI
John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI
Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI
Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI
Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA
Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA
Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA
Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA

Ya know... I'm gonna go completely out on a limb here. Stop me if this sounds crazy, but has it ever occurred to you to go out and INVESTIGATE 9/11?

You have these peoples names... why don't you go ask them what they were going to say?

Or should I just be packed up and sent to the funny farm for thinking this?

[Drudgewire]

That's right. So why didn't they have their facts straight in regards to 9-11?
Wow.

Just to make sure I have this right. You're saying if someone who is completely innocent of a crime is charged in a conspiracy, they should get with the other people who have nothing to do with the crime to make sure they have their facts straight about a crime they don't know anything about?

Holy cow I'd love to see an independent investigation made up of twoofers. It would make the judging on "Flava of Love" look like a Harvard Peer Review.

[twinstead]

Ya know... I'm gonna go completely out on a limb here. Stop me if this sounds crazy, but has it ever occurred to you to go out and INVESTIGATE 9/11?
You have these peoples names... why don't you go ask them what they were going to say?


I suspect it's because there's a very good chance that few if any of the people on that list actually thinks 911 was an inside job.

[ZENSMACK89]

I guess they didn't need that rule (since there's no evidence it was ever used).

Classic.

Please spell out exactly what you feel was wrong with the first commission that could be repaired with another.

That's what I've been doing.

[ZENSMACK89]

I guess they didn't need that rule (since there's no evidence it was ever used).

Classic.

Please spell out exactly what you feel was wrong with the first commission that could be repaired with another.

That's what I've been doing.

[mortimer]

Classic.



That's what I've been doing.
Nice zero-content reply.

[ZENSMACK89]

Wow.

Just to make sure I have this right. You're saying if someone who is completely innocent of a crime is charged in a conspiracy, they should get with the other people who have nothing to do with the crime to make sure they have their facts straight about a crime they don't know anything about?

Holy cow I'd love to see an independent investigation made up of twoofers. It would make the judging on "Flava of Love" look like a Harvard Peer Review.
That's your logic not mine. Why did Cheney and Dubya insist on testifying together and both refused to do it under oath? What is it all the supporters of the illegal wire tappings always claims? If you got nothing to hide then what are you afraid of?

hmmmmm

So what were Cheney and Bush afraid of?

[ZENSMACK89]

Nice zero-content reply.
I can't read for you.

[mortimer]

Why won't Zensmack89 spell out exactly what he feels was wrong with the first commission that a second would fix? What is he afraid of?

[Drudgewire]

So what were Cheney and Bush afraid of?
Unicorns. Duh. :rolleyes:

[Dr Harry Rein]

Apparently they didn't need to get their stories straight in an investigation into the deaths of almost 3000 Americans. It' seems to be good enough as is for the likes of you.

Have you ever served on a jury? Or, had any dealings with the legal or criminal justice system? Because if you had, I'll bet you'd find that there are always minor differences or discrepancies between the testimonies of multiple witnesses. This is the way the real world works. It doesn't imply anything sinister. Two people will never recollect the same event in the exact same way. However, the intellectual immaturity of the the truth movement tries to seize upon every minor discrepancy as evidence of mass murder.

[Triterope]

I suspect it's because there's a very good chance that few if any of the people on that list actually thinks 911 was an inside job.

Colleen Rowley doesn't. Here's an excerpt from her website:

It probably would have been difficult to have completely prevented the 9-11 attacks. But as I said in my May 2002 letter to Director [of the FBI] Mueller, it’s at least possible that, with appropriate investigative follow-up, we may have gotten lucky and uncovered one or two more of the terrorists prior to September 11, 2001. Testimony and information uncovered by the 9-11 Commission has shown that the country’s Director of Central Intelligence Tenet was perhaps no more than a dot or two away from having connected it all. If the connection had been made, a timely order could theoretically have issued to the airlines to bolt the cockpit doors on their planes. That action would have resulted in the best chance of thwarting the entire terrorist plot, as it then existed. There’s, of course, no way of knowing whether the terrorists would have gone back to their drawing board and found a way sometime later to circumvent even that protection.

This is someone who's trying to discover the real failures that allowed 9-11 to happen, and isn't afraid to point fingers at the most powerful people in government. And for her efforts, she gets co-opted by the Inside Job Thermite Space Laser Teen Club, as part of their pathological efforts to create the impression that anyone relevant is on their side. Sick, sick, sick.

[funk de fino]

That's your logic not mine. Why did Cheney and Dubya insist on testifying together and both refused to do it under oath? What is it all the supporters of the illegal wire tappings always claims? If you got nothing to hide then what are you afraid of?

hmmmmm

So what were Cheney and Bush afraid of?

Post # 123

[ZENSMACK89]

Colleen Rowley doesn't. Here's an excerpt from her website:



This is someone who's trying to discover the real failures that allowed 9-11 to happen, and isn't afraid to point fingers at the most powerful people in government. And for her efforts, she gets co-opted by the Inside Job Thermite Space Laser Teen Club, as part of their pathological efforts to create the impression that anyone relevant is on their side. Sick, sick, sick.

So conspiring to cover-up negligence isn't a conspiracy?

[ZENSMACK89]

Have you ever served on a jury? Or, had any dealings with the legal or criminal justice system? Because if you had, I'll bet you'd find that there are always minor differences or discrepancies between the testimonies of multiple witnesses. This is the way the real world works. It doesn't imply anything sinister. Two people will never recollect the same event in the exact same way. However, the intellectual immaturity of the the truth movement tries to seize upon every minor discrepancy as evidence of mass murder.
Sure this is probably true for the most part. But it doesn't explain the refusal to testify under oath separately if all they had to fear was minor discrepancies in their stories.

[HyJinX]

So conspiring to cover-up negligence isn't a conspiracy?

Where does it say that people were conspiring to cover-up negligence? Are just making stuff up again, Zen? You crazy, kooky kid.

[ZENSMACK89]

Where does it say that people were conspiring to cover-up negligence? Are just making stuff up again, Zen? You crazy, kooky kid.
So what were the REAL failures of 9-11 and who has been held accountable?

[Drudgewire]

who has been held accountable?
Al Qaeda. You may have noticed we've killed a couple of them. :p

[johnny karate]

You never heard of any of these people? How surprising.

No, what I haven't heard of is any evidence whatsoever from any of those people that supports a CT. None.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So what were the REAL failures of 9-11 and who has been held accountable?

This guy, for one.

http://www.nbc11.com/2006/0608/9340251.jpg

[Pardalis]

I don't think Zarqawi was involved in 9/11.

This SOB was:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646d34971b1dd7.jpg

[ZENSMACK89]

Al Qaeda. You may have noticed we've killed a couple of them. :p
Al Qaeda was both responsible and negligent in protecting us from the 9-11 attacks? How convenient. Wow I'll bet the CIA, FBI, NORAD, FAA, and the Bush administration were relieved to find that out.

[scissorhands]

Al Quead was both responsible and negligent in protecting us from the 9-11 attacks? How convenient. Wow I'll bet the CIA, FBI, NORAD, FAA, and the Bush administration were relieved to find that out.

Such pathetic and childish pedantry
Im sure I can detect a Pdoh smell to this.

[ZENSMACK89]

I don't think Zarqawi was involved in 9/11.

This SOB was:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646d34971b1dd7.jpg
Zarqawi wasn't involved in 9-11 but some idiots still get 9-11 and Iraq confused.

As far as the SOB you posted he claimed responsibility for 9-11 along with just about every other terrorist attack committed in the past century.

He also confessed to planning attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London, Pearl's murder in 2002, and planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton.

One CIA official cautioned that "many of Mohammed's claims during interrogation were 'white noise' designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day's interrogation session." For example according to Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House Intelligence Committee, he has admitted responsibility for the Bali nightclub bombing, but his involvement "could have been as small as arranging a safe house for travel. It could have been arranging finance.” Mohammed also made the admission that he was "responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Operation", which killed six and injured more than 1,000 when a bomb was detonated in an underground garage, Mohammed did not plan the attack, but he may have supported it. Dr. Michael Welner noted that by offering legitimate information to interrogators, Mohammed had secured the leverage to provide disinformation as well.

CIA officials have previously told ABC News that "Mohammed lasted the longest under water boarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk." Legal experts say this could taint all his statements. Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, M.D., an expert in false confessions, observed from the testimony transcript that his concerns about his family may have been far more influential in soliciting Mohammed’s cooperation than any earlier reported mistreatment

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Health/story?id=2955471&page=1

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/16/news/CB-GEN-Mind-of-Mohammed.php?page=1

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=12466





Some people, however, think that his confessions should not be taken too seriously as Guantánamo Bay is notorious for its alleged use of torture methods.

[Dr Harry Rein]

I don't think Zarqawi was involved in 9/11.

This SOB was:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646d34971b1dd7.jpg

I think this guy was, too:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1741646d34d8c95eb8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7956)

[Pardalis]

He also confessed to planning attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London, Pearl's murder in 2002, and planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton.

He's a busy SOB. And now he's a SOB in prison.

[Drudgewire]

I think this guy was, too:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1741646d34d8c95eb8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7956)
9/11 was pulled off to sell sexual enhancement pills? It MAKES PERFECT SENSE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT! :eek:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't think Zarqawi was involved in 9/11.

This SOB was:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646d34971b1dd7.jpg

I know, Zarqawis was the only pic of a dead Al-Queada operative I could find though.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Zarqawi wasn't involved in 9-11 but some idiots still get 9-11 and Iraq confused.

I hear some idiots still think 9/11 was an inside job despite the smackdowns recieved from Popular Mechanics, the BBC and History Channel.

[Pardalis]

I know, Zarqawis was the only pic of a dead Al-Queada operative I could find though.

Soon enough (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/03/09/wladen109.jpg)... (if not already) ;)

[ZENSMACK89]

I hear some idiots still think 9/11 was an inside job despite the smackdowns recieved from Popular Mechanics, the BBC and History Channel.
You need to sharpen your sword. It's a little dull.

Just like you.

Let's remember to keep it civil.

[Alferd_Packer]

a response to the e-mail I sent to the address listed on her web site.

NOTE! THIS EMAIL WILL NOT BE READ, PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE.
Professor Margulis does not respond to unsolicited email. She may be contacted ........



If you want the contact info send her an e-mail yourself. :D

[Stellafane]

I think this guy was, too:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1741646d34d8c95eb8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7956)

Oh no -- now truthers will have a new hypothesis for 9/11: The Big Bang Theory.

[Jonnyclueless]

Zarqawi wasn't involved in 9-11 but some idiots still get 9-11 and Iraq confused.

As far as the SOB you posted he claimed responsibility for 9-11 along with just about every other terrorist attack committed in the past century.

He also confessed to planning attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London, Pearl's murder in 2002, and planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton.

One CIA official cautioned that "many of Mohammed's claims during interrogation were 'white noise' designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day's interrogation session." For example according to Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House Intelligence Committee, he has admitted responsibility for the Bali nightclub bombing, but his involvement "could have been as small as arranging a safe house for travel. It could have been arranging finance.” Mohammed also made the admission that he was "responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Operation", which killed six and injured more than 1,000 when a bomb was detonated in an underground garage, Mohammed did not plan the attack, but he may have supported it. Dr. Michael Welner noted that by offering legitimate information to interrogators, Mohammed had secured the leverage to provide disinformation as well.

CIA officials have previously told ABC News that "Mohammed lasted the longest under water boarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk." Legal experts say this could taint all his statements. Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, M.D., an expert in false confessions, observed from the testimony transcript that his concerns about his family may have been far more influential in soliciting Mohammed’s cooperation than any earlier reported mistreatment

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Health/story?id=2955471&page=1

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/16/news/CB-GEN-Mind-of-Mohammed.php?page=1

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=12466





Some people, however, think that his confessions should not be taken too seriously as Guantánamo Bay is notorious for its alleged use of torture methods.



Except you conveniently forget that he confessed to it long before that and before he was even caught. And you also forget all the rest of teh evidence that goes along with his testimony. Yet you have no problem replacing all that with pure conjecture and speculation about government agencies.

talk about dull swords...

[Jonnyclueless]

That's your logic not mine. Why did Cheney and Dubya insist on testifying together and both refused to do it under oath? What is it all the supporters of the illegal wire tappings always claims? If you got nothing to hide then what are you afraid of?

hmmmmm

So what were Cheney and Bush afraid of?

Because testifying under oath can be used by political opponents for entrapment. Remember what happened to Clinton? This issue has little to do with Bus and more to do with the situation of being made to testify under oath. Pretty much any and every president would refuse for such reasons. Anyone actively involved in politics understands this.

[ZENSMACK89]

Because testifying under oath can be used by political opponents for entrapment. Remember what happened to Clinton? This issue has little to do with Bus and more to do with the situation of being made to testify under oath. Pretty much any and every president would refuse for such reasons. Anyone actively involved in politics understands this.


That's just an excuse and not even a good one. Clinton? So now 9-11 equates to a dirty dress? Even if it were true putting ones own political fears in front of something as important as getting to the bottom of 9-11 should at least be considered criminal all on its own.

[ZENSMACK89]

Except you conveniently forget that he confessed to it long before that and before he was even caught. And you also forget all the rest of teh evidence that goes along with his testimony. Yet you have no problem replacing all that with pure conjecture and speculation about government agencies.

talk about dull swords...
Oh he did huh? So then why the need to go through torture for something he already confessed to?

[HyJinX]

:nope:

[HyJinX]

Oh he did huh? So then why the need to go through torture for something he already confessed to?

To extract additional information about other terrorists, how things work, future plans, locations. C'mon...use your head before you post.

[HyJinX]

That's just an excuse and not even a good one. Clinton? So now 9-11 equates to a dirty dress? Even if it were true putting ones own political fears in front of something as important as getting to the bottom of 9-11 should at least be considered criminal all on its own.

Of course this is just your opinion, correct? :rolleyes:

[Jonnyclueless]

That's just an excuse and not even a good one. Clinton? So now 9-11 equates to a dirty dress? Even if it were true putting ones own political fears in front of something as important as getting to the bottom of 9-11 should at least be considered criminal all on its own.


Wow, you really don't get it do you? Wow.

The point you don't get is that politicians use testimony to get people out of office. Would you not agree that Clinton getting a BJ was meaningless to him running the country or his responsibilities? Of course. But because he was under oath, his opponents used it to try and get him out of ofice. All you have to do is get someone caught in a simple lie even if it has no real weight on the situation and you can get them out of office. The only reason they didn't go through with it is because it started to backfire.

All an opponent would have to do is catch Bush or Cheney in some kind of lie even if it had no weight on the issue, and they could us it to take over the presidential office.

As I said and you ignored, this is not an issue related to 9/11, it's an issue related to how politicians work. If you or anyone in that office has to testify under oath, opponents will use it as an opportunity to take over. And that is why No president will testify under oath unless they are forced to.

But continue to lie to yourself and pretend that somehow only Bush would refuse. And pretend that Bush's testimony would have much impact on what happened that day as if he was the one running around can calling all the shots.

[ZENSMACK89]

Of course this is just your opinion, correct? :rolleyes:
Yes it is. What's your opinion?

Dubya and Cheney being worried about their political careers is a valid reason not to answer questions about 9-11?

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh he did huh? So then why the need to go through torture for something he already confessed to?

Yes he did. Many years ago. And what torture? Wow, waterboarding? Oh lord stop the presses. What makes you think he even had to go through that to admit it? What makes you think that he was refusing to say anything beforehand? They guy is known for boasting about his accomplishments.

keep dancing, keep dancing.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes it is. What's your opinion?

Dubya and Cheney being worried about their political careers is a valid reason not to answer questions about 9-11?

Just as it would be for anyone in that position.

[HyJinX]

Yes it is. What's your opinion?

Dubya and Cheney being worried about their political careers is a valid reason not to answer questions about 9-11?

They did answer questions.

Read Jonny's explanation above. I understand the choices they made.

Your opinion is meaningless.

[ZENSMACK89]

Wow, you really don't get it do you? Wow.

The point you don't get is that politicians use testimony to get people out of office. Would you not agree that Clinton getting a BJ was meaningless to him running the country or his responsibilities? Of course. But because he was under oath, his opponents used it to try and get him out of ofice. All you have to do is get someone caught in a simple lie even if it has no real weight on the situation and you can get them out of office. The only reason they didn't go through with it is because it started to backfire.

All an opponent would have to do is catch Bush or Cheney in some kind of lie even if it had no weight on the issue, and they could us it to take over the presidential office.

As I said and you ignored, this is not an issue related to 9/11, it's an issue related to how politicians work. If you or anyone in that office has to testify under oath, opponents will use it as an opportunity to take over. And that is why No president will testify under oath unless they are forced to.

But continue to lie to yourself and pretend that somehow only Bush would refuse. And pretend that Bush's testimony would have much impact on what happened that day as if he was the one running around can calling all the shots.
Well then you must be agreeing with me. Dubya and Cheney were afraid to testify separately under oath because they knew in was probable they would get caught in a lie that could be used against them somehow down the line.

[ZENSMACK89]

They did answer questions.

Read Jonny's explanation above. I understand the choices they made.

Your opinion is meaningless.
Not separately. Not under oath. If it's the same thing then why didn't they just do what the commission originally asked for? Separately under oath.

Chicken. That' why.

[HyJinX]

Again, Jonny has explained this to you.

It's called being a politician. It does not, however, give any credence to your belief that they are murderers.

[Jonnyclueless]

Well then you must be agreeing with me. Dubya and Cheney were afraid to testify separately under oath because they knew in was probable they would get caught in a lie that could be used against them somehow down the line.

Just like any President. It's pretty much impossible not to. And I geuss you must be in agreement about Clinton being put under oath and impeached because he got caught in a lie right?

Now tell us what information they would be able to provide that would be of use.

[ZENSMACK89]

Edited incivility.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, see how far your childish antics get you and then ask why the extent of your work lies on an internet chat forum...

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes, see how far your childish antics get you and then ask why the extent of your work lies on an internet chat forum...
Does it bother you?

lol

[Jonnyclueless]

Not at all. And it no longer surprises me that all these Woo movements boil down to childish debates that simply waste everyones time. If you wish to make a mockery of 9/11, I can't stop you, but it doesn't help your cause.

Because we all know that what this comes down to has nothing to do with 9/11 but is simply the result of personal psychological issues. It has nothing to do with finding justice, but rather pretending to play out the role of a hero who saves the world by uncovering some great diabolical caper.

[ZENSMACK89]

Just like any President. It's pretty much impossible not to. And I geuss you must be in agreement about Clinton being put under oath and impeached because he got caught in a lie right?

Now tell us what information they would be able to provide that would be of use.
Wow. It's impossible not to lie. Really?

How about starting with a chronological description of their day and activities to the best of their ability. Separately given under oath that is.

That alone is testimony that if not the truth Dubya would have screwed up royally.

And Cheney knew it. That's why he wouldn't have any of it.

[johnny karate]

The ZENSMACK89 Players proudly present:

The 9/11 Trials: One Delusional Man's Sad Little Fantasy

The Players:
President George "Dubya" Bush
ZEN "Ninja of Truth" SMACK89
Francis the Talking Mule

Act I
Scene I

A dark and foreboding courthouse. President George "Dubya" Bush takes the stand. He is obviously in a heightened state of nervousness as he falls under the penetrating stare of ZEN "Ninja of Truth" SMACK89. The interrogation begins.

ZEN: Mr. President, please recount for the court your activities on the day of September 11, 2001.

Bush: Well, let's see...first I had breakfast and then I took part in a massive conspiracy to murder 3,000 American citizens...

The Entire Courtroom: .....

Bush: Crap.

Francis: HeeHAW!

Fin

[ZENSMACK89]

“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the US should help the US, uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.”

I know you have no real answers for me Johnny but at least try to stay on topic will ya?

[HyJinX]

Troll much, Zen?

[johnny karate]

I know you have no real answers for me Johnny but at least try to stay on topic will ya?I'm sorry, but your woeful misunderstanding of how criminal proceedings work warrant nothing but mockery.

[Darth Rotor]

So what were Cheney and Bush afraid of?
Scooter Libby turning stool pigeon.

Oh, wait, different topic.

Sorry.

DR

[Parsman]

Well then you must be agreeing with me. Dubya and Cheney were afraid to testify separately under oath because they knew in was probable they would get caught in a lie that could be used against them somehow down the line.

Again Mr Smack. These men were so evil they concocted a conspiracy to murder thousands of their own citizens and attack the nerve centre of their own military. And then they would give up the information that this is what they had done when asked to swear to tell the truth on a book?

REALLLLLLLLLY?
:eye-poppi

[johnny karate]

No, Parsman, you're not getting it.

See, the idea is to interrogate them separately and since Bush is so stoopid, he will get confused, and apparently confess.

You really got to hand it to those Truthers; that's some airtight logic right there!

[parky76]

as far as i a concerned, only the opinion of a Phd in engineering has any real say on the collapse of the wtc and wtc 7.

[ZENSMACK89]

Again Mr Smack. These men were so evil they concocted a conspiracy to murder thousands of their own citizens and attack the nerve centre of their own military. And then they would give up the information that this is what they had done when asked to swear to tell the truth on a book?

REALLLLLLLLLY?
:eye-poppi

REALLLLLLLLLY?

Why could it only mean that? Maybe they were criminally negligent in protecting the American people on 9-11 and are trying to cover their butt. Maybe it’s more then that. Without a real investigation who’s to say?

[Drudgewire]

Without a real investigation who’s to say?
Those of us who don't define "a real investigation" as "one that says what we want it to." :p

[ZENSMACK89]

No, Parsman, you're not getting it.

See, the idea is to interrogate them separately and since Bush is so stoopid, he will get confused, and apparently confess.

You really got to hand it to those Truthers; that's some airtight logic right there!
Not exactly. Someone brought up Scooter Libby. How did he get caught? Did he confess or was his testimony inconsistent with the separate testimony of others?

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow. It's impossible not to lie. Really?

How about starting with a chronological description of their day and activities to the best of their ability. Separately given under oath that is.

That alone is testimony that if not the truth Dubya would have screwed up royally.

And Cheney knew it. That's why he wouldn't have any of it.

It's impossible to not get cornered into one. So what they can do is catch him in a lie about something that is of no importance what so ever and use it to impeach him.

We already know the chronological description of their day and activities. And screwed up how? What could Bush have done differently that day that would have changed everything?

But thank you for your complete conjecture of what happened.

[Jonnyclueless]

REALLLLLLLLLY?

Why could it only mean that? Maybe they were criminally negligent in protecting the American people on 9-11 and are trying to cover their butt. Maybe it’s more then that. Without a real investigation who’s to say?

Criminally negligent how? You have clearly shown that you have no understanding of the situation since youb think it all boils down to 1 or 2 people. The reason no one is held responsible is because there is no one person or small group of people responsible. It's an entire system that was built over half a century and takes decades to change. I didn't see you raising any issues pre-9/11 about this. Sure is easy to point out mistakes after the fact but you certainly weren't here before 9/11 making such claims. Why? Because you like everyone else were living in a different time. Our entire defense was built around the cold war, not around terrorist attacks. And there is no one person that could have made a command and had the whole entire system simply change. And at the time there was little reason to do so.

And there was a real investigation. What you want is an investigation taht tels you your little theories are all the right ones so you can pretend to play the hero who saves the world because you uncovered a diabolical caper. The rest of us have to live in reality and cannot play fantasy like you seem to be doing.

And who are you kidding anyways? If they testified, it would not bring anything to light and not make any difference or uncover anything we don't already know, and you would simply claim they are lying or that the right question simply weren't asked and then call for yet another "real" investigation.

It's time to grow up.

[ZENSMACK89]

If they testified, it would not bring anything to light and not make any difference or uncover anything we don't already know, and you would simply claim they are lying or that the right question simply weren't asked and then call for yet another "real" investigation.


All you have to do is give a real answer. It’s not hard.

If them testifying would have made no difference then why did they object to it?

Why did they object?

You need wake up and stop apologizing and making excuses for people who clearly don't represent you.

[Jonnyclueless]

All you have to do is give a real answer. It’s not hard.

If them testifying would have made no difference then why did they object to it?

Why did they object?

You need wake up and stop apologizing and making excuses for people who clearly don't represent you.

now go back and read the several posts where I answered the question several times. it's not that hard. You need to wake up and stop using tireless Woo claims and acting like a robot.

but thank you for pointing out what all this BS is about. Which is your political position and trying to jsutify it by making up all these conspiracy claims. And then having them all based on conjecture and opinion. Because you can't understand nwhy they object despite it being spelled out for you, you feel you have the right to make up anything you want to suit your political views.

Again, come back to reality and we can have a more adult conversation.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, Parsman, you're not getting it.

See, the idea is to interrogate them separately and since Bush is so stoopid, he will get confused, and apparently confess.

You really got to hand it to those Truthers; that's some airtight logic right there!
The only thing "airtight" about the Turd Movement is their autoerotic self-asphyxiation.