It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World Trade Center Not a Demolition: New Mark Roberts Video

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Thanks for responding!

I read through your post and appreciate your perspective and see your points. Let me offer some clarification(s) and try to answer your questions:




If he asked you to prove anything false would you be so kind to site.


Your quite right. The initial post makes no explicit demand that I prove his comments are correct. The assumption that they are all correct is present throughout. He makes a series of, to me, claims to support his argument. As someone, I think the OP, states in a later post, they feel the very size of the post makes it credible.. That is, IMO, the OP feels that the mentioning these "facts" carries enough weight to make them true, by virtue of the length of questions. That is why I asked him to offer documentation, evidence, whatever to support those assertion.

You may think it's a small, niggling point.

It's not.

The truth movement relys on this kind of argumentative style. Truthers try to frame the debate under intellectually dishonest circumstances. The provide "proof" that is not strong (IMO) when viewed under the glaring light of context and are extremely selective about how they want to discuss the very issues they claim to be seeking truth about. If a conversation can not take place on the bedrock of intellectually honest debate, the truth (whatever it may be) has no hope of ever being found.

At any rate. a few posts later the OP does, in fact, ask me to take on his list. Where I again claim it's not up to me to disprove statements entered into the discussion as false. It's his burden to prove they are true.




What "theory" would that be exactly?


The original text you were pointing to was not included in your quote of my words. I'll take a stab at it and say I think you are referring to my reference of his statements as theories. They are. None have been proven and in my opinion, all have been throughly discussed, explained and debunked. Typically these claims, IMO, refuse to acknowledge rational, reasonable, science based explanations. To dismiss those explanations is fine by me. We are all entitled to our opinions. However, to perpetuate the myth of a conspiracy based off of "proof" that is, to be kind, highly contested by almost everyone but fringe groups who usually have a vested, financial interest in perpetuating the fraud. That's what I am trying to say by using the word "theory". Don't agree with me? That's great! Make statements presented as facts about a topic that is extremely contested is not being intellectually honest. Please understand I am not implying the speaker of those kinds of words is dishonest. Not in any way. I am suggesting that this kind of debate, really isn't at all. To have an honest debate, you have to frame the discussion in honesty, which acknowledges the controversial nature of those claims. That's all and I don't think in any way unfair.




He has no burden unless this forum is a criminal court proceeding. He is merely an agent of investigative data, clues, evidence etc.


You are very right, and I agree. This is no court, I am no lawyer and he's under no obligation to do or say anything I ask and I don't pretend that he is, or that I am a judge of anything. Please accept my apology as I can see how using what I think is sound logic can be interpreted as me attempting to be a judge and preside over what I think is fair, etc.

continued below........

[edit on 29-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]




posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   


He didn't accuse nor did he allege anything you have confused his list of mainstream media accounts, eye witness accounts, ear witness accounts, photographic images, establishing proof of physical evidence allegations that are self proving just because he listed them. I recognize them as just some of the great aggregation of the many deliberatly ignored


That's the thing, right there. They haven't been ignored. They have been throughly explained with reasoned, rational explanations based off of the types of investigations you later claim need to be done. They have been done, and don't support truthers claims. Because truthers decide to ignore those explanations is another issue. Again, choose to ignore the explanations and that's your peril. I have no beef there. But to claim these theories are "ignored" is not honest and not accurate. What's even more of a "catch 22" is how truthers claim no real studies have been done, but then cherry pick items from the very reports they say have never been done to support their claims of a conspiracy! For example, how does one make the claim that the buildings feel at freefall speed? By using government reports that throughly explain the dynamics of how the buildings fell, comparing the reported speed of collapse and outside data on objects at free fall and BAM! A conspiracy is found.





You have established you can not be impartial disclosing your bias not to mention prejudice for your antagonism of truthers


In compete honesty. Which is more than can be said for (most) truthers. I will look you right in the face and admit to you I am biased. I am looking for the truth, even if the truth does not line up with what I suspect to be the truth. I offered that I acknowledge I am subject to bias like anyone else. I also admit that I am not any where near perfect and I may be wrong.

I, honestly, can't remember the last time a truther has given any ground, ever. I am intellectually honest when I say I am biased. I am. We are all. I admit mine. Most truthers are positively rabid and get really nasty when presented with evidence, or explanations they might be wrong. I'm not and as a matter of fact, it's usually me who offers that I might be wrong. As I am here. I might be completely, utterly wrong.

My admitted bias, said openly, does not eliminate me from the discussion. Being so rabidly devoted to a cause as to make you (the royal you) unable to consider anything other than what you have already made your mind up about is far more of a liability than being honest enough to admit imperfections and human biases.





That list is compelling on its face


No, it's not. You just fell into the very trap I am talking about. The existence of a long list of questions does not mean there is any veracity because the list happens to be long or that the questions were asked in the first place!. He might be wrong on every count.




Argumentative, if he could see absurdity, you wouldn't have to ad hom his position. Please site the absurdity so we will know how it is you can see what he doesn't. If that brings up your unwillingness to prove HIS conspiracy theories, I would suggest that it is only his absurd position requiring clarification


My entire series of posts goes into great detail on my thoughts on his position, which you are responding to. Dismissing everything I wrote is fine; that's your prerogative. But asking me to restate everything I have already said as though I haven't said anything is rejected. Again, you fall into the trap of demanding that I disprove his statements of fact.

If you enter into a conversation and attempt to frame the debate around data points you consider to be factually true, it is entirely reasonable for me to ask for proof that what you are trying to frame is in fact true in the first place! Is it not?

****....continued below


[edit on 29-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   


No that is proof that you should recuse yourself from this as you have just presented enough sweeping generalizations casting an obvious bias affecting your impartial objectivity. This explains why his list was completely oblivious to genuine serious consideration and quickly rebuffed as merely "claims he thinks are true"


Disagree, as this is not a court, I'm not a lawyer and there is no judge present! Again, I admitted I am biased. I offered this (obvious) information. I admit this. You are too. We all are. Is it easier for you to engage someone like me, whom is honest enough to admit the biases we all have, or to deal with people who hide their vested interests and biases?

I am upright enough to stand buy what I said. If your going to eliminate me from serious, honest, debate because I admit that I have biases......well then that says a lot about where truthers are coming from. That, my friend is pure propaganda, driven by agenda.

At any rate, thank you for letting me know I am effective. Trying to remove me from the discussion because I admitted I am human and therefore biased, lets me know I am doing a good job.

Cheers!

[edit on 29-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
My point of contention comes when mainstreamers point to the collected works of say, the NTSB and Flight 93, which is based on thousands upon thousands of pages of expert testimony, witnesses, engineering reality and it is summarily dismissed by truthers because the Loose Change guys said it isn't true.


Well that's an awfully poor reason to say such a thing, wouldn't you think?

In fact, can you link me to the specific example you're talking about?

[edit on 29-12-2007 by bsbray11]


Honesty, no I can't link to someone actually saying exactly that, you are correct and your point is well taken.

The only thing I can offer is this:
Prove that what I said isn't true. If we use the logic-tree of most on the other side, this is enough to continue the discussion.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Totally fair points and I concede you are completely correct: profit motive, on it's own, should not be a reason to disqualify someone. I completely agree. After all, we all enjoy profits from our labor. I think factoring in a profit motive is fair though.

I think we will never agree on the WTC, and that's okay by me. I think we can have some great discussions.

I realize that some of what I have said might seem like nitpicking and I respect your feelings on this. I certainly wasn't/am not trying to belittle you, or call you into question, as a person.

I do feel the fine details, on this subject, are critically important. Context too. I think that alot of what is presented as evidence by the Truth movement is highly selective and excruciatingly myopic. They point out, IMO, inconsistencies that - excluding critical context and surrounding data - are intriguing. It's also not an accurate picture. Viewing the whole picture, in it's entirety is critical. Small mis characterizations, or generalizations, do matter. Especially on a topic like this with many, many facets.

Small mis characterizations, when added up with other small, inaccurate generalizations 100s of times over creates a bedrock of "facts" that totally distort the true picture. When all of these misconceptions are taken as fact, and the debate is fought on this faulty bedrock, the "truth" uncovered is a lie, is it not?

That is what I am trying to ficus on (and obviously doing a poor job). The very basis by which our discussions occur are founded on a bedrock of untruth and mis information born from small, usually not on purpose, repeating "facts" that actually aren't.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Well THANK YOU! That was much more comprehensive account of the dialogue you two have had. I can usually get a pretty good grasp of someones sincerity, integrity by the time and trouble they care to illustrate their point or by their vitriol and arrogance .

You have shown me a candor and willingness to admit frustrations and failings in your own experience without apologising for them as I agree you seem to have earned the right to own them.

I am MOST impressed how much trouble you go to explaining things you obviously have said many times over yet still showed a measure of respect and kindness in what may be things you've had to explain many times while keeping in mind it was your first impression you make to me.

You make a great first impression by the way

- Con

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
The only thing I can offer is this:
Prove that what I said isn't true. If we use the logic-tree of most on the other side, this is enough to continue the discussion.


Bolded by me.

I wouldn't really want to continue the discussion if that's the game we were going to play, because I could play it all night and get nowhere. I can't disprove that there isn't a 12-mile tall water slide on the dark side of the moon, what does that tell you about 12-mile tall water slides?


If we use the logic-tree of most on the other side


I think we would agree that the most worth-while thinking is done on a basis of sound reasoning, as opposed to how most other people think/do things. BTW, kudos to what Conspiriology said. It would be wonderful to have someone else around who actually reads and thinks before responding, let alone is polite about it.


[edit on 29-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar


Your quite right. The initial post makes no explicit demand that I prove his comments are correct. The assumption that they are all correct is present throughout. He makes a series of, to me, claims to support his argument. As someone, I think the OP, states in a later post, they feel the very size of the post makes it credible.. That is, IMO, the OP feels that the mentioning these "facts" carries enough weight to make them true, by virtue of the length of questions. That is why I asked him to offer documentation, evidence, whatever to support those assertion.

You may think it's a small, niggling point.

It's not.

The truth movement relys on this kind of argumentative style. Truthers try to frame the debate under intellectually dishonest circumstances. The provide "proof" that is not strong (IMO) when viewed under the glaring light of context and are extremely selective about how they want to discuss the very issues they claim to be seeking truth about. If a conversation can not take place on the bedrock of intellectually honest debate, the truth (whatever it may be) has no hope of ever being found.
...
The original text you were pointing to was not included in your quote of my words. I'll take a stab at it and say I think you are referring to my reference of his statements as theories. They are. None have been proven and in my opinion, all have been throughly discussed, explained and debunked. Typically these claims, IMO, refuse to acknowledge rational, reasonable, science based explanations. To dismiss those explanations is fine by me. We are all entitled to our opinions. However, to perpetuate the myth of a conspiracy based off of "proof" that is, to be kind, highly contested by almost everyone but fringe groups who usually have a vested, financial interest in perpetuating the fraud. That's what I am trying to say by using the word "theory". Don't agree with me? That's great! Make statements presented as facts about a topic that is extremely contested is not being intellectually honest. Please understand I am not implying the speaker of those kinds of words is dishonest. Not in any way. I am suggesting that this kind of debate, really isn't at all. To have an honest debate, you have to frame the discussion in honesty, which acknowledges the controversial nature of those claims. That's all and I don't think in any way unfair.


Well, since I'm him, I take great exception to this characterization. SAP, you don't seem to understand, or are unwilling to understand, the fundamental impossibilities that most items on this list represent. Ok, time to get to brass tacks.

For example, the buildings, both of them, fell at nearly freefall speed. that is 11-16 seconds. How did this happen? Twice? Just explain how. How did the cores disintegrate? How did they topple like matchsticks after the collapse? Don't you find is exceeding strange that NIST doesn't even want to address this issue, and has not provided any convincing explanation for the collapses? Is blind faith--in exactly what, I haven't the slightest clue, because no official body has explained how this happened--a good basis for your presumption? do you even know about what I just wrote?

You obviously have not the slightest education in physics and engineering/architecture. Otherwise you would not be so bold and so cocky as to dismiss this list as some sort of biased truther's trap. It is what happened, and it is impossible to explain without massive energy inputs that do not jive with the official story. Therefore reality is suspect? What kind of Alice In Wonderland answer is that?

The concrete was micronized, along with much of the buildings' content. For Chrissakes, what do you think was in that 3-inch thick pile of dust coating lower Manhattan and wafting out to Jersey? Flour from the kitchen of Windows on the World?

I mean really, wake up. Stop talking about and around the argument and get to the argument. Get your hands dirty now that you've had 2+ pages to complain. Really, this is a silly dance of a thousand paper cuts. You may be sincere, but you are quite uninformed and quite blinded by your admitted biases.

Let's hear some responses now, or really, start a new thread about how truthers don't tell the truth. Sheesh.

And yes I've lost all patience, this is a farce. Even the Cap'n, bless his official-story heart, is willing to address the list, for what it's worth.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by gottago]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Thanks very much for the post; feel free to use my post as you wish.

Well I do believe the collapse of the towers are essential to proving 9/11 was not what they said it was, but the reality is that most people have neither the education or the critical facilities to comprehend how the collapses are a physical impossibility without massive energy inputs of some sort. Most convenient for perpetuating a fairy tale. Really most of this is common sense, not rocket science, but basic critical thinking is absent, and all you get in return is flak from hacks.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

so...above par...you are one that believes that the government has told you the truth and are satified with the evidence presented by the commission...ok...and all the SERIOUS questions brought up and that are not explained, are just from conspirecy nuts. so let me ask you this... why wouldn't the government just come out and answer the SERIOUS questions and settle all the turmoil surrounding 9/11 and give millions of skeptical people assurance that they..(the government)...did their job correctly. this would be a logical, reasoned approach that i would use to put people's minds at peace



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


That's not at all true.

I am entirely open to new ideas. However, I before can accept something as fact, and thereby become a foundation in which to have a discussion, I just want the barest of evidence that what we are talking about is plausible.

What I am asking for is some form of outside verification concerning your claims, that's all.

You asked me to give you sophomoric explanations to a list of things you claimed happened. I am not sure any of the things you are claiming happened, actually did. Or,if they did there isn't some totally mundane, non-sinister reason for it.

For instance, the free-fall speed "proof". You state that the buildings fell at nearly free fall speed. Most videos show the buildings fell in 12 to 16 seconds which is far longer than it would take at free fall speeds (9 seconds or so).

Link to a video of WTC collapse

I don't think I am being unreasonable nor d I think I am being short-winded. If you want to see me as an idiot, who just doesn't get it, that's totally your purgative. I don't speak unless I think I have at least a functioning knowledge of what I am speaking about. I don't get into areas I am not qualified, or at least knowledgeable enough (with a correct understanding) to speak intelligently about.

So far I have spent, I think, alot of time explaining myself, clarifying myself, apologizing when I am wrong and admitting my own weaknesses. I have tried (and will continue to) to answer everyone's questions and further explain myself when someone asks me to.

All I am asking is for everyone to stop the political positioning, semantic posturing and just offer the basis for which you make claims. That's all. You made a claim that your list was well documented.

Your list was, how I read it, designed to show the weight of the movement through inconsistencies that are fact and then have these adopted as truth and have the discussion move forward based off of that truth. The problem is, I don't think they are at all factual statements. Before I offer explanations to what you claim happened, shouldn't we at least agree what your claiming did, in fact, happen in the first place?

This is the second time I have responded to one of your points, on your list, and not heard a thing in response.

I have been getting to my argument: provide some proof as to what your claiming. Anything.

For the third time, pick one of your bullet points. Any one of them. Your choice. Then offer just some basic data, evidence, documentation, testimony, something other than your words.

So, to be very clear: I haver taken two of your points and provided information that clearly disputes what your claiming. I am, again, asking you to provide some support information to backup just one of your claims.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Eight or nine more paragraphs of long-winded nothing. But nada.

You blithely say that near free-fall is not near freefall because it could be 16 seconds. Did you not read whether it's 11 or 16 seconds it's immaterial? That. Is. Not. The. Point. The point is, two 110-story buildings fell in about 16 seconds. How? By what mechanism? You don't find this unusual?

(I now actually have sympathy for the Cap'n about the use of all-caps; you, of all the people I've ever run into on this board, are absolutely impervious to logic. Congratulations.)

Let's just take the dust. Are you disputing the dust? Do I have to post a picture of it? Ten? Link to NIST?

You don't think it exists, do you? What then was it on the ground? How much more basic a fact is there than that there was all that dust? Are you some kind of broken computer, like HAL in 2001? Are you telling me that because I, a truther, put it in my list that it therefore didn't happen? Are you serious? What the heck was it then?

Just answer about the dust.

Just. The. Dust.

What caused it?

Really, I've never met anyone like you. Wow.

Really, I'm flabberghasted.


[edit on 29-12-2007 by gottago]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Seriously guy, you're becoming a bit unhinged. I'm not sure what part of my logic you don't understand? What exactly are you trying to communicate? Or better yet, think I haven't?




Eight or nine more paragraphs of long-winded nothing. But nada.

Actually, not true.


  1. I asked for the semantic game you are trying to play to stop
  2. I asked you for the third or fourth time to provide any evidence for any of the things you claimed as fact
  3. I asked you for the third or fourth time to pick just one of your claims, provide any evidence what-so-ever and we would talk about it in length
  4. I took on a second claim of yours and provided evidence your claim was incorrect
  5. Again explained you are asking me to disprove something for which you provide no evidence happened in the first place



You blithely say that near free-fall is not near freefall because it could be 16 seconds. Did you not read whether it's 11 or 16 seconds it's immaterial? That. Is. Not. The. Point.


Then what was the point of mentioning it in your list? If you cite the list as all well documented fact, it turns out it's not well documented, it turns out it's not even true, then you claim the fact that it's not true is immaterial. Am I missing something?




The point is, two 110-story buildings fell in about 16 seconds. How? By what mechanism? You don't find this unusual?


That two 110 story buildings collapsed after being hit by two fast moving, fuel laden aircraft? That they collapsed in roughly 16 seconds? Nope, not that earth shattering. How? By gravity. By what mechanism? Structural failure from said fast moving aircraft. No not unusual.

What do you think is unusual about any of that? Instead of claiming I am too stupid to understand, take a shot and try me. Explain what you think is unusual about the collapse, etc.



(I now actually have sympathy for the Cap'n about the use of all-caps; you, of all the people I've ever run into on this board, are absolutely impervious to logic. Congratulations.)

Thanks for personal attack. Much appreciated. I reach over backwards to explain myself, admit my mistakes and be even-handed in the face of people, like you, taking every cheap shot possible while I try to just discuss....well what we are discussing.




Let's just take the dust. Are you disputing the dust? Do I have to post a picture of it? Ten? Link to NIST?You don't think it exists, do you? What then was it on the ground? How much more basic a fact is there than that there was all that dust? Are you some kind of broken computer, like HAL in 2001? Are you telling me that because I, a truther, put it in my list that it therefore didn't happen? Are you serious? What the heck was it then?

I have to tell you, it's getting a little creepy at this point. I know that I have gotten to you but, seriously unplug for a bit.

To answer your questions: I don't dispute there was dust at ground zero, nope, I saw it with my own eyes & no need to link a picture of it. That's really all you asked as from then on you were arguing with yourself without any input from me.




Just answer about the dust. Just. The. Dust.What caused it?

We agree on that, so your arguing with only yourself at this point. I think it's fairly obvious what caused all the dust you are getting unglued about: millions of tons of collapsing building.




Really, I've never met anyone like you. Wow. Really, I'm flabberghasted.

Back at 'cha buddy!

If you slowed down, got a hold of yourself, realized that nothing we talk about on a forum on the internet is going to change the world and accordingly shouldn't get your blood pressure as high as it seems to be right now, and actually took the time to read my replies we might actually be able to communicate. Maybe.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

so...above par...you are one that believes that the government has told you the truth and are satified with the evidence presented by the commission


Hello jimmy, I think this might be where some people get confused. The evidence wasn't presented BY the commission...it was compled and presented TO the commission...and then they made a report. The information comes from a wide variety of sources and yes, some of those sources are a part of the Federal Government, but not all.

Here is my personal take though-- I am more inclined to believe the FBI, Port Authority, FDNY, NYPD, Boston PD, FAA, NORDAD, FEMA, NIST, and yes, a conglomeration of our freely elected leaders et. al. -- Than I am inclined to believe Thierry Meyssan ( 2002 spawned the Pentagaon/Missle theory-- French), Eric Huffschmid ( 2002 spawned WTC demolition theory-- Nazi), and Christopher Bollyn ( Supposedly spawned the flt 93 was faked theory- Nazi)-- Now, those were the first stage "theorists" Along with Alex Jones which is no surprize since he has been in the fear and conspiracy biz Looong before 9/11-- is it any shock he jumped right on board? No!


...ok...and all the SERIOUS questions brought up and that are not explained, are just from conspirecy nuts. so let me ask you this... why wouldn't the government just come out and answer the SERIOUS questions and settle all the turmoil surrounding 9/11 and give millions of skeptical people assurance that they..(the government)...did their job correctly. this would be a logical, reasoned approach that i would use to put people's minds at peace


I feel many sources including our Federal Government have tried to answer the serious questions. However there are some that don't , for whatever reason, like or trust the answers given. Many that have opposing viewpoints want to think nothing has been researched, documented, or investigated; but I believe that is just because they don't like the answers. Also in an event of this magnitude with such chaos and unprecidented damages done to structures there is no way to be 100% sure what any outcome will be, and there is no way to have 100% easily explained, if it is able to be explained at all.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
........., realized that nothing we talk about on a forum on the internet is going to change the world .....


i think your wrong about this. actually, i know your wrong, but i'll take the soft stance, LOL!



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Try this out, I have done this, take a 45 pistol on top of a mountain and fire it. What would sound, normaly, very loud, in this situation can hardly be heard. Standing on the groud, especialy if you are only seeing this on tape, it is hard to imagine how high these buildings are. They stand alone, as far as the tops of the buildings are concerned. There is nothing to reflect the sound back. Here is an example: The noise of the second plane hitting the towers. I was watching a video on youtube taken by people a few miles away. You can see the buildings in the distance and then the flames coming out from the hit. You can count to five and hear this tremendous explosion. None of the videos, made from close in, pick that up.
This video, here, presented for discusion is not a good compairison. When these buildings are demolished, they go through a long proccess of being stripped and gutted and all the windows and doors removed. The explosions do not have anything to muffle the sound, inside the buildings. You have to understand that when the building bends in and buckles, it is the result of the heavy support structure being taken out. It has nothing to do with the outside supporting skin of the building. that part is already compromised. The center is contained in sections that are designed to prevent spread of fires and they would have held most of the blast and what escaped would have gone up and down, instead of outwards.
This video is another pathetic hack job to give people who do not want to know the truth to have a reason to ignore the whole thing. No one who wants the truth will ever be convinced by this.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 30-12-2007 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 30-12-2007 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 30-12-2007 by jmdewey60]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
The 911 Commission carefully overlooked these considerations. "It ignored the issue of the drills and continuously pointed to FAA incompetence. the national defense was such an abysmal failure."

Why? Well perhaps by some Kooky twist of fate mock live hijackings were in progress on the morning of September 11th

statements to what the 9/11 Commission wrote about the so-called surprise factor and the "fog" of war had me saying OH yeaaah ,, what was I thinking? ( yes facetious)

It appears that Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of all the many air defense exercises that took place on the morning of September 11, 2001." Well of course he was it's in the 911 commissions report and as we all saw the morning George W. Bush had his aid walk up to him while he sat in a childrens class learning phonics, the aid whispered in his ear those words that George to this day can't remember. I imagine he was told we are under attack which would explain his getting up immediatly, excusing himself inlieu of the nations security and leave post haste.

(yes i'm lieing)

We all know that's NOT what he did. NOOO what it looked like is someone whispered Plan- A has begun. Then we saw that expression most people have when they are wondering or hoping everything goes as planned. Cheney was in charge of everything that morning so Bush really didn't HAVE to leave right away and he DIDN'T!

I mean afterall it was Cheney's idea in the first place.

Well LUCKY FOR US THEIR WAS an unprecedented concentration of air drills on September 11th, that again (damn we are blessed!) Lo and Behold! they JUST HAPPENED TO include hijackings and drills in which planes hit buildings. I mean talk about a guy walking into a bar to pull off an armed robbery with 10 or 20 off duty cops in it having a beer! (continuing the ordinary day)

The Commission reported early in its pages:

“NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet"

On the morning of September 11th, two nationwide annual air defense drills were underway (pre occupied) Diversion? Naah thats truther talk


(thats ok George Don't get up yet we still got Norad)

NORAD was in the midst of a major exercise called “Vigilant Guardian
(Doh!) what about anyone else! (Ok George Relax turn the book upside right and read some while Dickie checks) Ahh yes we have plenty of air defense left.

A second annual global readiness exercise called Global Guardian was underway (WTF? That doesn't start till October 22-31) yes but someone reschedualed it in early sept. (NO WAY!!!)

Now what!!!@ Can this day get any worse! I mean George is getting nervous their and he is getting to the part of the book that uses two syllable words.

ENTER Rod Serling: Neener neener neener neener
A NORAD press release, reported in USA Today in 2004, stated that, “These ‘mock hijacked aircraft,’ otherwise called ‘live-flies,’ are used sometimes in air-based war games involving hijacking scenarios. They are actual planes of a variety of makes, in the air pretending to be hijacked for the benefit of effective training.”

Ok George is scared so what do we do 911 commision?

Be Afraid,,
Be Very Afraid!

Huh? why?

It gets even more ordinary and less suspicious as we go just watch!

There were more “planes into buildings” scenarios going on that morning. “In what the government describes as a "bizarre coincidence," (but ATS debunkers are ready with the broken record response team) "where is your proof" they chant in a monotone robotic voice"

Neener neener neener neener

Hey tell George to take his time everything is out of control *whew*

you sure?

The 911 commission says Almost immediately,confusion and bewilderment set in:

"At 8:40 At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane.

"It must be part of the exercise," Deskins thought.
At first, everybody did. Then Deskins saw the glowing direct phone line to the Federal Aviation Administration.
On the phone she heard the voice of a military liaison for the FAA's Boston Center.
"I have a hijacked aircraft," he told her.

Six minutes later, at 8:46, the exercises were still causing confusion: "Deskins ran to a nearby office and phoned 1st Air Force Chief Public Affairs Officer Major Don Arias in Florida. She said NEADS had a hijacked plane, no, not the simulation likely heading for JFK. "

Major-General Larry Arnold recalled,


“As I walked out of a video teleconference with NORAD, someone came up and told me that the Northeast Air Defense sector had a possible hijacking. My first thought was the hijacking was part of the exercise...Then we began getting calls of other potential hijackings. Not all the calls were true. These hijacking reports added to the confusion... We were receiving many reports of hijacked aircraft. When we received those calls, we might not know from where the aircraft had departed. We also didn’t know the location of the airplane...By the end of the day, we had twenty-one aircraft identified as possible hijackings.”

Oh MAN THATS IT THIS IS GETTING FAR TOO TRUTHER! Where on earth is this coming from your anus? (No Archie DuhBunker,, this is straight from the Ommisions report)

You mean "CO mission right?"

No sir! this is the United States Government reputation on the line here we got plans boys I mean if you can't knock out four planes with our 240 Billion in military, how in the hell are we gonna take out Iraq in a short while Dick? (Ooops!) Loose Lips sinks dicks cheney.

(Continuing the rather mundane events that day)

Robert Marr, head of NEADS on 9/11, says, “At one time I was told that across the nation there were some different reports of hijackings.”

General Richard Meyers at the Pentagon confirmed that “conflicting reports throughout the morning led to confusion in the Command Center.”56 The Commission itself documented, “During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft in the system.”

Thus it would appear that simultaneous air defense drills were fogging the defense data streams and that personnel were chasing 4 real hijacked airplanes among unidentified blips.

(Gee,, YA THINK!) "shush boy your startin to sound like one them dang duhbumpkins"

Well I am Listing this because AS YOU KNOW THESE QUESTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SATISFIED BY THE 911 Report.

Or have they?
well what did IT say,, that these guys aren't?

"Oh that the drills enhanced the defense response, and the reports by officers on duty that day."

NO WAY%$#@@^

W A Y,,,,

Well that's not what I'm reading from all those Generals and Military?

Doesn't that prove anything??

Nope,, now you know why we call it "The 911 Omission"

AHH I see,, so like umm that way it isn't telling a lie!

Now you're getting it DuhFlunker,, Now you're getting it.

(call Bill Clinton,, see what he has to suggest)

"Why couldn't this have happened on my watch - Bill Clinton"
(Because you made it happen on her dress Bill)

PART TWO, "THE LIE in a Dummyas Clothing"

"The Fog of war, lifts"

I can see clearly now the rain is gone,, C'mon Truthers,, SING!

Ok how is it we are going to get out of this? I mean we ( The United States of America) WE Look like either complete idiots OR,, and I hate to say this,,complicit in some wild conspiracy to Gurantee the success of those planes hitting it manipulating literally hundreds of military officials and generals into unknowingly taking part in a conspiracy?

(Don't worry George,, Dicks got it handled)

Oh how?

We are going to commission a congressional report investigating,,

CRIMINAL LIKE FORENSIC KIND!!??

No no no,, heh by the time our man Rudy gets finished,, those towers won't know what hit em, Besides cleaning up the crime scene, Im going to underfund a study to create the most tortureously construed alibi in History and I got the idea from you george.

Really ! what is it?

We all play DUMB!

I mean who could have imagined this happening,, get it?

Umm no?

George just say "umm and ill do the talking.

K Dick

The transfer of two line defense roles to senior members of the Bush-Cheney Administration, paired with the concentration of air drills on the day itself, raise serious questions regarding the success of the attacks.

Early expressions of surprise over the attacks: In response to the seemingly inexplicable success of the 9/11 attacks, a chorus of astonishment issued from the White House, the military, and the FBI. Tim Ruppert asked Donald Rumsfeld on September 30, 2001 whether he had ever imagined that the Pentagon would be attacked by a terrorist using an American commercial airline. “Oh goodness no! “Never would have crossed anyone’s mind.” His Commander-in-Chief had earlier said that “al Qaeda “struck in a way that was unimaginable.”

General Richard Myer, acting air defense commander, told the military press in late October: “You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this.” FBI Director Robert Mueller declared a week after the attacks, “There were no warning signs that I’m aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country"

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer fell into step. "Until the attack took place, I think it is fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility

The story had, several days earlier, prompted a press conference from White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, saying: “Never did we imagine what would take place on September 11th, where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons.” His statement was repeated again later in the day by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

So what's this got to do with why truthers are so whacked out? I mean those are Highly esteemd Government Officials. Do you have any PROOF they are lieing to the American Public moreover what REASON would they have to lie truther?

To Cover up a Conspiracy?

OH GAWD!! You Guys never quit what Lies?

THIS BIG FAT ONE ! If they all denied such a thing could ever happen,

THEN WHAT WAS ALL THAT STUFF OUR MILITARY WAS PRACTICING THAT DAY!!!

Ohhh yeaaah???

Well why were they practicing?

Incase someone didn't complete the mission or perhaps overthrew the hijackers. We don't have any Jack Rubys around but we do have Dick Cheney and one trigger happy shot gun let alone an oder to shoot that sucker out of the sky before they might actually land that thing opening up Pandoras Black Box (REAL FLIGHT RECORDER)



How did the 9/11 Commission deal with these contradictions?

It did not:

WOW wouldn't that make people go kinda crazy with questions?
yes,, in fact to this day it never ends. We had James Randi wannabee's eager to insult that stuff as Truth Fairies"

it simply left out the findings of the Joint Inquiry report and the Louis Freeh testimony, and though it copied the August 6th Presidential Briefing Memo into its Report,24 it did not include the memo in its entirety as quoted by CNN on April 10, 2004.25 And further to that Memo, the Commission referred to Condoleezza Rice’s April 8th Hearing testimony, but did not include it. In it she had said, “I was concerned about possible threats inside the United States


According to Professor John Arquilla, a Special Operations expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, “The idea of such an attack (like 9-11) was well known. It had been wargamed as a possibility in exercises before Sept. 11, 2001

Damn wouldn't something like this take at least someone with special training like ohh say the CIA? George,, your Dad was incharge of the CIA.

Oh yeah

Don't worry,, we got a patsy.

Who!

A guy with the reputation of a terrorist and the training of the CIA.

NOT??

Yep,, Osama Baby!

Wow that will make sense!

But why would he go to all this trouble?

mmmmm?? I know Americans will eat this up!

He did it BEACUSE HE HATES OUR FREEDOM!

Yeah put a Thomas Jefferson spin on it Dick!


According to USA Today:

“In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties...One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred...‘Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft,’ the statement said...The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country...But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked... Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons."


Thus the evidence suggests that mock hijacks were in progress on September 11th, which would explain the reports of military officers



Finally, USA Today reported that “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” was on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Thus, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still hadn’t found a way to fly back to Washington.” Furthermore, the FBI had deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” While the attacks were in progress, then,

“the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes was being AWOL"

Gee,, Isn't that unusual?

Not if your Tricky Dick Cheney

As far as George Bush? he has been AWOL his entire two terms.

All of the mocked up live hijackings in progress on the morning of September 11th should be investigated as a plausible explanation for why the national defense was such an abysmal failure.

Two Questions that to this day have not been answered, strategically avoided by Government Officials and danced around by debunkers with a litany of verbal gymnastics, bull baiting treating anyone asking as if they had been already if only those asking would do the research treating the now well discredited original skeptics of 911 with ridicule attacking them as subhuman once they were diluted with several hundred agent provocateurs who did nothing but surf the net and make assinine posts about halograms while other outside witness testimony of bombs going off was cleverly dismissed simply because there were no eye witnesses.

hehe This is the staggering intellect of the typical debunker ladies and gentleman.

Umm when was the last time you were close enough to a bomb exploding and lived to tell about it?

Yeah me too,, I know what ya mean.

BACK TO DICK AND JANE and the two questions

err I mean George.

If the drills impeded the response, a new investigation should question why the two strange departures from longstanding air defense protocols were made in the months before 9/11.

And if the drills enhanced the response, a new investigation should ask how the attacks could have succeeded on a day when the country was especially prepared to handle them.

This was asked by a 911 truther on National TV while Americans who knew it would be asked eventually, waited anxiously,,,

Foiled again! The question was going to be posed to BILL O'Rielly

The poor sap never got a word in edgewise while Bill yelled his head off calling em a traitor, lunatic,, in the mean time a proposal to have an independant Forensic Criminal investigation and independant engineering study was reluctantly approved by bush but not till he had taken all the teeth out of it. No Forensic No study of WTC7 as no attempts to waste time studying CD or anyother theory but the one that the Bush administration says we all saw.

Two jet planes hit the towers and they came down. Now FIT THE DATA TO THAT THEORY with Jim Dandi's Blessings.

But umm what about wtc7? Dick?

George,, by the time anyone finally figures out,, it will be the clinton familys turn to play president with plan B and C almost finsihed.

We will owe our friend Osama for playing the bad guy.

Don't worry George we just want em to go to afganistan so WE have a reason to get your Dads Unocal deal done then it's Off to Iraq!

Umm Dick?

What George

Umm The American People may be in the dark but how we gonna keep moving to countrys like that and why?

Well Rummys got some army games he wants to try and besides we can just do what we always have done,, LIE. Call your Dads buddy George Tenent and have him come up with something good this time,, ya know WMD's or Biotoxins whatever just make sure it's a slam dunk

Ok dick but I think most will be sayin an old texas proverb,,

Fool me,,?? umm once,,,

err,, shame,, shame on,,

you,,.

Fool me,,,err

George,,

yeah Dick?

Shut up

.

- Con


[edit on 30-12-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by gottago
 



Just answer about the dust. Just. The. Dust.What caused it?

I think it's fairly obvious what caused all the dust you are getting unglued about: millions of tons of collapsing building.


Finally an answer to one point on the list, for what it's worth.

Now, explain how the concrete turned to micronized dust as the buildings collapsed?

Save all the rest for someone else. Just answer the question: How? Friction of all the building pieces hitting each other?

Just how, please. Simple, declarative sentences. How?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I don't buy the controlled demo of the towers (poss # 7 though)
I do buy the idea our Gov't knew long before the planes hit we were under attack and did nothing. I'll even go so far as to accept theat Cheney and Fiends had a hand in it's inception, having such close friendships with Binny & Family.
Intentional 'Shock Doctrine'
there is a conspiracy , but it's not in regards to the towers collapsing- physics explains it and makes possible it's inevitablity increasing it's impact on the society. A Grand Finale, the cresendo. Perhaps theonly miscalcualtion and disappointed was they did not topple over, instead of collapse within themselves.
very similar in relevance is the destruction of the CIA Torture tapes. The crime was actually that which was being video'ed. the destruction is merely a fruit of that poisonous tree.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Um no. I have answered three of your questions and you have side stepped all of mine.

Two of my three answers got no response what-so-ever from you and the third didn't get a rebuttal, but another question.

I had a long response typed out to you then I realized a few things.



  1. I have gotten to you in a way that makes any communication impossible. At this point, IMO, your unhinged and completely unreasonable. Anyone this angry, who is clearly not reading my responses, needs some time out. I'm not kidding on this; unplug for a bit. You are way, way too emotionally involved in this.
  2. You don't have anything to say beyond your list. If you had anything of substance, beyond creating a list, you would have offered it by now.
  3. I've addressed three of your questions and your only response is to ask more questions, demand I answer those and act as though I haven't been answering your other questions.
  4. You have utterly lost the debate of reason. You don't want me to talk because my answers only further box you into a corner.



Again, I am asking you to take just one of your bullet points. Lets use the whole dust "issue" since you have actually responded to me on that, abeit with only more questions. Please follow through with this thought. What evidence of a conspiracy does a bunch of pulverized concrete spread out of Manhattan make to you? Specifically, rather than asking me circular questions claiming I don't get it, that I am too stupid to understand....how about you fully explain yourself so I know what the heck we are debating in the first place?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join