I just saw "witness to 9/11"

reply to post by GoodOlDave

When I say you really have no credibility, just why do you think I'm saying it?

Dave, we are on a conspiracy web sit Dave. I am not writing a book Dave, I am not in a court of law Dave. As far as “credibility” Dave, are you trying to me laugh.

I likewise showed you a credible report by a repudable MIT scientist that gave a perfectly reasonable NON conspiracy explanation of why the towers collapsed. Your response was unsurprising- complete silence.

Because Dave it was all OPINIONS there was no truth that supports your ridiculous claims Dave. The problem here was you left out the creditable sciences I thought you were playing a joke. Infact I laugh myself silly when I read it that is why I didn’t respond Dave.

2. To spread the word and to debate people by using nothing more than creditable well-researched facts and sciences and to post creditable sources.

You have provided no such thing. The only material you've provided was what YOU YOURSELF personally interpreted as being in support of your conspiracy claims, when a close examination showed it was not.

Dave stop ASSUMING what I think, or how I interpt. Dave aren’t you doing the very same thing here. YOU Dave are only providing materials that you interpt to support YOUR conspiracy claims when one closely examines what you present, right Dave?

Let’s, clear this up for you, if you want to debate me then email the MOD to learn how to debate. Because you obviously do not know how when you learn the art of debating then come see me

That is about as blatant an avoidance of the question as it gets. Dude, I'm not asking you for your mother's bras size. I'm asking whether you really did mean what you said about "not caring what other peopel think, you're goign to believe what you want to believe". You're avoiding commenting on YOUR OWN WORDS, now?!?

No Dave in you OWN WORDS this is what your ridicules answer to me was:

-which to me is an open admission that you're going to believe what you yourself want to believe regardless of what anyone could possibly tell you, which for all practical purposes is the same thing as having an agenda. So, either your prior statement is false and you really are here for an open discussion, or the statement is true and you're not really honest about being here for "a real debate" with anyone. Please clarify my confusion- which one is it?

Now Dave here is you answers I do not care what anyone thinks about my beliefs or my opinions, I am not writing a book and again I am not in a court of Law. This is a conspiracy web sit a chat room nothing more Dave. It is entertainment at best, don’t you agree? If people on ATS don’t believe what I have to say then they have the right to disagree, right Dave. It a free world Dave. Oh, and Dave, the only AGENDA that I have is telling the truth and learning the truth. If I have told a LIE Dave, please show me where I have told lies.

...which brings me back to *another* subject. As you recall, I specifically asked you that, since you thought "witness to 9/11" wasn't a credible report, just what evidence *would* you find a credible explanation that, if the film had contained it, it would finally convince you your conspiracy stories are hogwash, without simply brushing it off as disinformation of one kind or another. So, I'm asking it again.

Dave… it would really take me weeks to explain the fallacies in this film and how one sided it is. One that is well verse on both sides issues of the events of 911 doesn’t need to rehash all the same dribble all over again, right Dave.

That's right, you ARE being lied to, namely, these self serving conspiracy websites are putting out complete rubbish and deliberately withholding balanced information,

First of all Dave you do not know where I get my information, so stop ASSUMING you do. Just because I do not agree with your ridiculous conspiracy theories, it does not give you the right to insult me and say everything that I read is a lie. Look to me Dave you are getting “desperate” here, so now you are resorting to ridiculing, right Dave.

which prevents you from making an informed judgement on your own.

Dave you only need to look in a mirror.

I've already posted many examples of that and I'll post as many more examples as you'd like.

No thank Dave, save it for some one else that you can rope in with your ridiculous fantasies.

It has nothign to do with fear, or the hope that the gov't isn't lying to us, or any of those other worn out excuses you're using as a crutch to rationalize why people aren't listening you.

Dave I don’t care what people think about me I am a blogger on a conspiracy web site I am not trying to win a contest here. As far as excuses Dave, I don’t need them I have the truth on my side and that is something you do not have yet that is why you still continue to spin, and take side steps, around the facts, and everyone in here see that, right Dave.

It has everything to do with our recognizing a con job when we see one.

Yet, you haven’t recognized it yet, have you Dave.

As I said before, I don't see the problem as being with you, yourself, as you're obviously an otherwise intelligent person.

Dave, this is the first creditable factual thing you have said about me in your entire post so, all I can say is thank you.

You're simply the victim in all of this.

I total disagree with you, perhaps you need to look at your reading material or web sites and try to understand why so many people in these 911 threads are disagreeing with you.

Originally posted by impressme

Hey GoodOlDave, where is your credibility? By looking at all the response on this thread, everyone is laughing at you, Spreston keeps throwing visual proof at you, and you continual ignore him.

For the simple reason I don't have the time to debate everyone here all at once. I can either debate you/Tezzajw or I can debate spreston/Tezzajw. OR I can debate you/spreston, which is probably what I'll wind up doing. You and spreston at least post things I can look up, but trying to get a straight answer from Tezzajw on anything is like trying to nail jam to the wall.

GoodOlDave, If anything I have given you does not open your eyes to the truth about the 911 commission report and the fact that Governor Thomas Kean, Chairmain of the 9/11 Commission has came out and admitted they were set up to fail. Meaning they did not get any cooperation from the Bush administration and their inquiries were stonewall at every turn. So Dave, what is it that you don’t get?

Yes, I know. He and fellow Commissioner Lee Hamilton wrote the "inside story of the 9/11 commission" book you're referring to, which is how I know you're artfully quoting him out of context, or I should say, the website you're getting that partial quote from is deliberately trying to trick people with deliberate misquotes. I on the other hand am quoting him directly when he says..

"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."

So in short, he does agree there are flaws, and agrees there will be new information coming out in the years to come that may show the report to be incorrect, but he likewise says that so far, he (as in the 9/11 commission report) has more credibility than the challangers (as in you conspiracy people), and THAT is the position I likewise subscribe to. The full text of the interview is at-

Lee Hamilton disses the conspiracy theorists

Your right dave it was Governor Thomas Kean, Chairmain of the 9/11 Commission has came out and admitted they were set up to fail, Gee Dave, does it look like I am stumbling around blind Dave?

Yes, it does, actually, becuase he and Hamilton ALSO agree that the report, as is, is still generally accurate. NOWHERE, and when I say NOWHERE I mean NEVER, do those guys even remotely agree with any of your conspiracy stories. The reason why you're stumbling around blind should be obvious- you're getting all your information from these stupid conspriacy websites that are deliberately taking quotes out of context in ortder to give themsleves false credibility.

Even you have to agree that to understand the actual meaning of someone's statement you have to look at the full context, not just one or two sentences snipped out of a paragraph while deliberately ignoring everything else that was said.

Dave, one of the lies in the 911-commission report was they did not talk about WTC 7 Remember Dave this was the complete report to what happened on 911.

Ummm, how the heck is NOT discussing something a lie?

Dave do you know the head director of the FBI Robert Muller said and I will quote” We may never know who the real hijackers are because there was no paper trail leading to any country”.

There you go again, quoting bad information from those conspiracy websites whose entire mission in life is to swindle you into believing this garbage. You are most definitely NOT quoting him. What Mueller ACTUALLY said, and I AM quoting him, is-

"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.

In short, the terrorists had managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and to not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle."

The full text of THAT is at...

FBI disses the conspiracy theorists

Astounded! Dave, what are you rambling about now? You have failed to answer that question I ask you about the fighter plane Dave, in fact you presented a video of a fighter jet in the skies of NYC after the WTC were hit! Do you not remember me asking you Dave to show me military planes in NYC before the attacks?

No, you DIDN'T ask for evidence of military planes over NYC *before* the attacks. You asked, and I quote-

"Really, can you supply a link for this information besides your opinions show us some sources that it was only *minutes after the attack* because I don’t recall see any F16, or F18 flying over NYC in any of the News videos. "

Askign for evidence of military planes *before* the attack is a ridiculous thing to ask anyway becuase I never said military planes were seen over NYC *before* the attack, and becuase military planes weren't over NYC *before* the attack there wouldn't even be any such evidence to post. If you're attempting to claim anythign else other than this, then you will be lying.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
iii) Why are 9/11 truthers considered terrorists?

By who?

Your government....

This bill was passed by the House but blocked by the Senate:
HR 1955, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. It's an amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.


This bill was passed in the House on October 23, 2007 with a vote of 404 to 6.

And who are these terrorists? 9-11 Truthers.

Among the claims of those testifying to Congress about the “need” for H.R. 1955 was that anyone who questions the official government line on 9/11 is akin to a terrorist or a material supporter to terrorism. One speaker, Mark Weitzman of the Wiesenthal Center (ironically founded by Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal to educate the public about war crimes), claimed that architects, engineers, and scientists that question the official 9/11 narrative are the same as alleged violent jihadist groups. This was further implied in a Powerpoint presentation in which Weitzman showed architect Richard Gage’s website, AE911Truth.org..., alongside alleged violent jihadist sites. Gage has criticized the 9/11 official story about the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

...www.projectcensored.org

That bill failed but they continue to do whatever they like. There is a unit in the NSA that monitors 9/11 truthers:

The US government has allegedly set up a special security wing with the sole task of distancing Washington from any involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

According to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, this group is fully operational and is called the “Q Group” of the National Security Agency and its headquarters are within the headquarters of NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland.

“Under Obama there has been no effort to curtail this organization. Unfortunately, the NSA’s power is growing because the Obama administration is now giving them new powers to conduct surveillance in cyberspace, placing cyber command under the control of NSA,” said Madsen.

Washington Post:

Cybersecurity Plan to Involve NSA, Telecoms

DHS Officials Debating The Privacy Implications...

President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve "monitoring private-sector networks or Internet traffic," and Department of Homeland Security officials say the new program will scrutinize only data going to or from government systems.

But the program has provoked debate within DHS, the officials said, because of uncertainty about whether private data can be shielded from unauthorized scrutiny, how much of a role NSA should play and whether the agency's involvement in warrantless wiretapping during George W. Bush's presidency would draw controversy...

AT&T was sued over its role in aiding the Bush-era counterterrorism program to intercept Americans' e-mails and phone calls without a warrant....

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So in short, he does agree there are flaws, and agrees there will be new information coming out in the years to come that may show the report to be incorrect, but he likewise says that so far, he (as in the 9/11 commission report) has more credibility than the challangers

Thanks for the Saturday morning chuckle, Dave.

So in short, he agrees that his conspiracy theory is better than other conspiracy theories because he ignores the credibility of the other theories, compared to his.

So in short, he allows for the possibility that with another, better investigation, there could be more information released that shows the official reports to be completely incorrect.

In your own wonderful way, Dave... you've admitted that the investigations that we got were woeful, lame and possibly hiding important facts that can lead to the truth.

Well done!

I like the history channle. I think the show was good overall.. While some feel they where looking over there "pet" theory on how those towers fell. Or what they think happened without having any hard facts to back up their claims.. Rarely do I find any on sites like these..
I may be new so I don't mean to make any angry mobs... But you just are all fighting so much you don't see the real people who are suffering right now.
Which will lead to our suffering. For feeding the beast and leaving your true heros out to roost...

Originally posted by tezzajw
So in short, he agrees that his conspiracy theory is better than other conspiracy theories because he ignores the credibility of the other theories, compared to his.

So in short, he allows for the possibility that with another, better investigation, there could be more information released that shows the official reports to be completely incorrect.

I suppose I could agree with that... but you're neglecting to mention they won't ever, EVER be proving any conspiracy involving explosives, either. He specifically said his Commission looked for the possibility of explosives but didn't find any, nor did any of the engineers the Commission talked to, either. So the best the truthers can ever hope for from further investigations is that both sides are wrong.

I can live with that.

In your own wonderful way, Dave... you've admitted that the investigations that we got were woeful, lame and possibly hiding important facts that can lead to the truth.

Good grief, I could show you a square and you'd insist it would be a triangle. The guy specifically said they did the best they could, and did as much honest research that they could. There was NO intentional Coverup by the 9/11 commission, and it's idiotic to claim they were actively "hiding important facts" and then turn around and be quoting them complaining how Bush "set them up to Fail".

Please, pick a story and then stick with it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Yes, I know. He and fellow Commissioner Lee Hamilton wrote the "inside story of the 9/11 commission" book you're referring to, which is how I know you're artfully quoting him out of context, or I should say, the website you're getting that partial quote from is deliberately trying to trick people with deliberate misquotes.

WRONG! Now Dave lets try this again shell we, What does Lee Hamilton have to do with Governor Thomas Kean, truthful comment? Furthermore I just showed you proof with a video of Thomas Kean making the statement Dave. What did I take out of contexts from Thomas Kean?

So in short, he does agree there are flaws, and agrees there will be new information coming out in the years to come that may show the report to be incorrect, but he likewise says that so far, he (as in the 9/11 commission report) has more credibility than the challangers (as in you conspiracy people), and THAT is the position I likewise subscribe to. The full text of the interview is at-

Tell yah what Dave, you can stick to these government officials who would never lie to you Dave, but I am not buying any of it. oh, Dave why didn’t your hero Commissioner Lee Hamilton talk about the discrepancies that they wanted the justices department to look into the lies that where being told to them?

9/11 Commission: Our Investigation Was 'Obstructed'

www.commondreams.org...

9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony
Commissioners considered criminal probe of false statements

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general.
The panel even considered taking the matter to the Justice Department for a possible criminal probe, commission member Tim Roemer said.
"We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy."

www.cnn.com...

The 911 commission knew they didn’t have the truth, but they went ahead and publish their phony cover-up book of lies knowing full well what they were doing, because they were probably told to, or lose their positions, or even their careers. However, that is my opinion.

Yes, it does, actually, becuase he and Hamilton ALSO agree that the report, as is, is still generally accurate.

No Dave, they do not that is your opinion, nothing more Dave.

NOWHERE, and when I say NOWHERE I mean NEVER, do those guys even remotely agree with any of your conspiracy stories.

Why of course not Dave, why would they? Their dictator and parts of his administration probably threaten their careers, if they didn’t tell the story they way the Bush administration wanted it told, they would be finished. Had they published the truth that did go on record, and the hundreds of eyewitness who were interviewed who told a different story than the 911 commission only the 911 commissionaires decided to bury the truth. Not knowing several years later, that under the freedom of information act those testimonies that the 911 commission with the help of the FBI buried had to surface. And guess what Dave, if all of those testimonies were lies why did the FBI go through such length to buried them eh? The fact is this Dave, most of the interviewers didn’t even know one another yet their stories were remarkably the same, how was that Dave?

Dave stop putting government officials on petal stools as if they do not lie. Of course they lie, it is human nature to lie. Don’t you lie once in a while to benefit you sometimes, even for financial gain, or career gain, or for a promotions, or for power, or for what ever reasoned there is.

The reason why you're stumbling around blind should be obvious- you're getting all your information from these stupid conspriacy websites that are deliberately taking quotes out of context in ortder to give themsleves false credibility.

Dave ..Lets stop with the personal attacks ok, you keep repeating the above quote over and over, and I keep telling you that you do not know were I get my reading material from. Dave you do not live with me. You do not know how much reading I do, or where I go to do my research, because Dave I have never told you, so please stop ASSUMING that you know where I get my information . Furthermore, I don’t have to take quotes out of context, why would I need to lie when all I have to do is post a sources with creditable facts that you can read yourself. Dave I will “NEVER” post a lie as a fact, however, if I don’t have proof or facts to a question, I will give an opinion sometime but again I always will write this is my opinion of courses.

I do not believe lies are acceptable in any debate it serves no purpose but to trip you up in the end, right Dave? As far as “false credibility,” if it is not true then there is no credibility is there Dave? And as far as my quote about Robert Mueller I never lied period.

Even you have to agree that to understand the actual meaning of someone's statement you have to look at the full context, not just one or two sentences snipped out of a paragraph while deliberately ignoring everything else that was said.

It funny you mention this Dave, where do I snipped one or two sentences out and post it as facts I NEVER HAVE yet in your desperate attempt you told a lie to try and discredit me, Shame on you Dave. If I was doing anything like that you would be the first person eagerly thrilled, to demonstrate where I have done so.

Monday, February 26, 2007
9/11 Anomaly: No Hijacker Evidence


In September 2002, FBI director Robert Mueller twice told CNN that “there is no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers”. Yet a mere 48 hours after the 9/11 attacks, the FBI released the names of 18 hijackers (quickly amended to 19 names, along with photos). This was based on a trail of evidence that, in the words of a “former high-level intelligence official”, “was left deliberately – for the FBI to chase.”

This apparently planted evidence provides the thin logical justification for our War on Terror to this day. Firstly, it was reported on 9/12/01 by ABC News and later by the Associated Press that the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami was found intact a few blocks from the World Trade Center. Even the Guardian is skeptical, saying, “the idea that Atta’s passport [a common misreporting] had escaped from that inferno unsinged [tests] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on terrorism”.

shoestringcentury.blogspot.com...

:: Whistleblowers ::
FBI agents Colleen Rowley (Minneapolis), Kenneth Williams (Phoenix), and Robert Wright (Chicago), amongst others, have courageously come forward with evidence that their superiors derailed promising investigations that might have foiled the 9/11 attacks. While on the trail of terrorists, why were capable field agents blocked, thwarted, intimidated and undermined by their superiors at FBI headquarters? Surely claims of incompetence and inefficient bureaucracy is missing the point. At a recent press conference, Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch has even suggested possible treason. How does the FBI hope to explain this pattern of blocking of legitimate investigations by capable field agents? Or will they explain?

globalresearch.ca...

Askign for evidence of military planes *before* the attack is a ridiculous thing to ask anyway becuase I never said military planes were seen over NYC *before* the attack, and becuase military planes weren't over NYC *before* the attack there wouldn't even be any such evidence to post. If you're attempting to claim anythign else other than this, then you will be lying.

Dave… stop with the Red Herrings, you are not fooling anyone in here. You have gone out of your way to twist question and answers to fit you conspiracies theories. You are deliberately trying to cover- up your old ANSWERS, that you answers weeks ago which were wrong in the first place and were pointed out many times. Then you slide in a different answer and then jump on the messenger and ridicule and insult his intelligent as if he is an idiot.

Enough is enough! I am done with this thread, I have had enough of the insults and ridiculing. It is obvious clear you are not interested in the truth and the proof is you have gone out of your way to avoid all the important questions that have been ask of you. and still refuse to post any sources to back up your claims. It is clear who is being disingenuine here. I have wasted enough of my time on this thread listening to your “rants,” and opinions and your false accusations on me personally that are untrue.

Dave, this is my last post on this thread, you have a nice day. (game over!)

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, and while we're on the subject, I myself have been at the WTC, before the attack (I bought a gorgeous Japanese wall decoration from the sales girl at the gift shop, under the table. I still have it) and after the attack (on the 4th anniversary, when it was still a big hole in the ground).
I'll be the first to admit this doesn't make me an expert in anything, but knowing what the place actually looked like at least gives me a foundation for understanding whether your conspiracy stories are practical or not...and they aren't.

AHEM... Dave, Dave, Dave!!!

A wall hanging? You can't be serious! We're discussing one of the most heinous crimes in twenty-first century American history and you're talking about a wall hanging you "bought under the table." Obviously your morals haven't improved. Sorry about the damaged ego Dave.

Dave, why are you so hell bent on defending the 911 OS? Perhaps you have not read it or maybe you did not comprehend some of big words or the physically impossible events described therein. It is clear that you don't understand logic and thus base your entire view of the events of 911 on emotion.

While I applaud your patriotism, your constant ridiculing of those who do not believe the OS is intolerable. We use these blogs to exchange thoughts but mainly to share factual information about 911. Since you object so strenuously to our position, why are you always in 911 threads that are clearly contrary to your beliefs? Why do you target some of the most reputable posters who, unlike you, in almost every instance provide links to their very credible sources?

You are a troubled person who has gone as far as following posters around ATS to pull previously posted material from old threads to use to attack them in current threads. You need to stop harrassing us Dave. I'm sorry your life is stuck on the Looney Tunes channel but the personal attacks you launched in this thread alone is unbelievable.

I hope you wake up one day and open your mind to reality. Maybe then you will see the truth about 911 and maybe, just maybe, you won't have to ride the short bus anymore. Dave, how many fingers am I holding up?

[edit on 7/12/2009 by Sanity]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Good grief, I could show you a square and you'd insist it would be a triangle.

That's just a silly statement to make, Dave. Using completely false sentences like that devalues the rest of your 'argument'.

If you want some help to correct your false statement, then using Logic 101 (the subject that you failed in this thread) and Geometry 101, we can state that a square can be partitioned into two congruent Isosceles triangles. It's a simple process where you draw a diagonal line through the square, joining two opposing vertices together.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The guy specifically said they did the best they could, and did as much honest research that they could.

Then why did they omit lots of other research? Why was WTC 7 bypassed in the 9/11 Commission Report?

You can believe that they did the best job that they could, while I choose to consider otherwise.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Thanks for the Saturday morning chuckle, Dave.

So in short, he agrees that his conspiracy theory is better than other conspiracy theories because he ignores the credibility of the other theories, compared to his.

So in short, he allows for the possibility that with another, better investigation, there could be more information released that shows the official reports to be completely incorrect.

In your own wonderful way, Dave... you've admitted that the investigations that we got were woeful, lame and possibly hiding important facts that can lead to the truth.

Well done!

Wow! Nice twisting! I think that can be classified as out and out lying about what Dave said, though, since you twisted it so much. It is one thing to misinterpret what someone said, its totally something else when you twist what someone said into something that doesn't resemble its original context in the least.

I've seen that a lot in the Troothers. Its about the only way they get any traction on anything these days. That and posting the same HUGE IMAGES over and over again.

Can one of you guys check with your boss Craig and see how their little party in Arlington turned out? The talk is since nobody has heard ANYTHING about it that it was a laughable failure. Could you put it on your agenda for your CIT/PfT morning meeting? Thanks.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by trebor451]

reply to post by trebor451

Nice twisting! I think that can be classified as out and out lying about what Dave said, though, since you twisted it so much.

Nice lying! If tezzajw was doing any twisting, or lying, you would be so eager to demonstrate where he has, however you haven’t.

I've seen that a lot in the Troothers. Its about the only way they get any traction on anything these days.

I guess the Thermite discovery counts for nothing in your mind. You are simply spewing the same old garbage.

That and posting the same HUGE IMAGES over and over again.

The reason these HUGE IMAGES are posted repeatedly is because they are the truth and you refuse to look at the truth. You keep parroting the OS, and continue to ignore these HUGE IMAGES.

The talk is since nobody has heard ANYTHING about it that it was a laughable failure.

The truth is painful and we can see you are emotionally hurt, it shows in your post.
I assume you came in here just to attack tezzajw.

This thread is not about tezzajw, it is about a documentary on 911, called “Witness to 911”. So, what do you think about the documentary? Do you think it was one sided? Do you think the film was presented truthfully in it entirety? Did it answer all of your questions, or did it open the door for more questions?





[edit on 12-7-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
For the simple reason I don't have the time to debate everyone here all at once. I can either debate you/Tezzajw or I can debate spreston/Tezzajw. OR I can debate you/spreston, which is probably what I'll wind up doing. You and spreston at least post things I can look up, but trying to get a straight answer from Tezzajw on anything is like trying to nail jam to the wall.

AHEM... Well Dave, I must disagree with you again. You don't give yourself enough credit. I think you could take us all on at once because you have all the signs of being an accomplished mass debator. Hmmmm... with all the fun you seem to have in here spouting off your dopinions, you know, it just seems like you spend a great deal of time pumping yourself up just to explode on everyone. Maybe you just feel the need to release your tensions on us "Truthers" hoping change us or maybe it's our fault for rubbing you the wrong way. I'm sorry Dave, but you're not our captain and we're not your seamen.

Dave, I hope you will make the best of a sticky situation and end your OS fantasy and embrace the truth. I know it will be hard but at least play with the idea.

Originally posted by trebor451
Wow! Nice twisting! I think that can be classified as out and out lying about what Dave said, though, since you twisted it so much. It is one thing to misinterpret what someone said, its totally something else when you twist what someone said into something that doesn't resemble its original context in the least.

In your alleged 25 years of military service, trebor, did they ever teach you to support your claims with facts?

I commented on the words of Dave's source. It was admitted that there may be errors, even though they tried to do best they could.

You must have no idea about what twisting words is, as everything that I stated is factual, based on Dave's source. Besides, you never tried to show where I 'twisted' or 'lied', which shows your lame position about the claim that I twisted words.

The best that you could do was to imply more garbage about me being a member of CIT. trebor, I don't know what kind of great military strategy that they tried to teach you in your alleged DoD role... but they sure as hell never taught you how to win a debate. "Sir, no sir!"

Originally posted by impressme
Because Dave it was all OPINIONS there was no truth that supports your ridiculous claims Dave. The problem here was you left out the creditable sciences I thought you were playing a joke. Infact I laugh myself silly when I read it that is why I didn’t respond Dave.

You know, this is what I get for accepting your claims at face value. I went back through the 17 or so posts you made on this thread to find your "scientific facts", and you've posted NOTHING even remotely resembling anythign scientific. NOTHING. Only information about people grumbling about the 9/11 commission report and links to the jersey girls, with the occasional "people heard explosions" hyperbole. In fact the only thing remotely scientific I've seen anywhere on this board is the report that showed "aluminum residue was found in the wreckage of a building that was made of aluminum". Thank you, Captain Obvious.

So just WHAT "credible scientific material" are you referring to that supposedly contradicts the MIT report, exactly? "Put up or shut up" is the rude but nonetheless relevent term that best applies, here.

Now Dave here is you answers I do not care what anyone thinks about my beliefs or my opinions, I am not writing a book and again I am not in a court of Law.

Then you should know your conspiracy stories are doomed to be branded as being rubbish forever. You have to know the accusations you're making are razor-sharp serious, so it necessarily means they need to be able to survive stringent analysis, and that does mean being able to stand up in a court of law. If you don't even care that your conspiracy stories can't survive even precursory analysis on these boards, let alone a court of law, then you might as well admit you're supporting them for no other reason than becuase you think it's funny, and be done with it.

Oh, and Dave, the only AGENDA that I have is telling the truth and learning the truth. If I have told a LIE Dave, please show me where I have told lies.

All right. One moment you say a) you don't care what anyone says becuase you're going to believe what you want to believe, and the next moment you contradict yoruself and claim b) you're here for honest discussion and debate. Logic dictates that only one or the other can be true becuase if you don't care what other people think than your debate can hardly be honest or open minded, and I'm simply asking you which statement is true. Getting a straight answer out of you on THAT is like trying to nail jam to the wall, too. Jeez Louise, I'm only asking you to explain statements that YOU made.


THEN, you asked me to show you proof that jets were seen over NYC minutes after the attack and I gave it to you. You then changed your story and attempted to claim you wanted evidence of jets over NYC *before* the attack, which I never said and you never asked. You then turned around and used it to say *I* was a liar. It was about as sophomoric an attempt at a strawman argument as it gets, and I can't even blame the conspiracy websites for that. That was entirely your own doing.

There were other cases (I.E. deliberately misquoting FBI announcements concernign evidence against Al Qaida) but you were simply repeating the bad information being given to you, so I can't blame you for that.

Dave… it would really take me weeks to explain the fallacies in this film and how one sided it is. One that is well verse on both sides issues of the events of 911 doesn’t need to rehash all the same dribble all over again, right Dave.

Bait and switch. I didn't ask you to explain the fallacies in this film. I asked you what evidence would you accept as legitimate, that would convince you that your conspiracy stories are rubbish? I myself will accept as irrefutable proof of a conspiracy, and therefore that the OS is completely wrong, if an insider with direct knowledge of the conspiracy comes forward to spill the beans, reveal details, and name names, like Deep Throat did to expose Watergate.

So, going by your statement that there isn't any ulterior agenda driving your motives, then what would convince YOU that YOU are wrong? No need to post an entire novel, a simple one or two sentence answer will do.

Just because I do not agree with your ridiculous conspiracy theories, it does not give you the right to insult me and say everything that I read is a lie. Look to me Dave you are getting “desperate” here, so now you are resorting to ridiculing, right Dave.

How am I insulting or ridiculing YOU when I say that the people feeding you the material you're reading are lying to you? Please, explain that one to me.

Dave I don’t care what people think about me I am a blogger on a conspiracy web site I am not trying to win a contest here. As far as excuses Dave, I don’t need them I have the truth on my side and that is something you do not have yet that is why you still continue to spin, and take side steps, around the facts, and everyone in here see that, right Dave.

Is that a fact? Then how is it that I look at, and comment on, the material you post, but when I offer you examples of how the conspiracy websites are lying to you, you say (and I quote)-

"No thank Dave, save it for some one else that you can rope in with your ridiculous fantasies."

Since when is deliberately running away from anything that contradicts what you want to believe "having the truth on your side"? It's falsehoods, not the truth, that need fear critique, as Patrick Henry once said.

I total disagree with you, perhaps you need to look at your reading material or web sites and try to understand why so many people in these 911 threads are disagreeing with you.

Well that should be immediately obvious why "so many people disagree with me- conspiracy forums like these are by definition heavily populated by conspiracy supporters. Come to think of it, these forums are the only places where I can even find you conspiracy supporters. You know as well as I do that the moment you conspiracy people open your mouths in public, it's open season on you.

Pres. Clinton pwns a conspiracy theorist

reply to post by GoodOlDave


AHEM! AHEM!
Dave, Dave, DAVE!!!! I just read your reply to impressme. I am really impressed at your ability to change gold into chicken poop and enjoy eating it up. It looks as though you are into virtual masochism. The fact is, not so goodol'dave that impressme has it right and you don't. You don't like what he posts because 99% of his info is (a)credible and (b) shows the associated source. His sources are trustworthy regardless of what your crystal ball says.

You continually attack the best posters in the 911 threads with emotion, not fact. You have done the same thing to me. You are a stalker and that is creepy. Why do you follow and ridicule "Truthers" on ATS? It is my opinion that you get off on insulting and degrading bright, intelligent posters to try and bring them down to your level. Here is an example:

Originally posted by impressme

Enough is enough! I am done with this thread, I have had enough of the insults and ridiculing. It is obvious clear you are not interested in the truth and the proof is you have gone out of your way to avoid all the important questions that have been ask of you. and still refuse to post any sources to back up your claims. It is clear who is being disingenuine here. I have wasted enough of my time on this thread listening to your “rants,” and opinions and your false accusations on me personally that are untrue.

Dave, this is my last post on this thread, you have a nice day. (game over!)

After this post, you had to attack him (her) again! You are also unable to do the tiniest bit of research. It's funny, you criticize every web site having to do with opposing the 911 OS but you really have no clue about any of them. Where do you get your information Dave? I am willing to bet it comes from Dave's library of misinformation and twisted facts. Please don't send me a library card as I have little use for 911 fiction as edited by GOD oh, GOD forgive me, I meant GoodOlD ave. are you trying to be clever again Dave? Boy, you think you're something, don't you?

Dave, why can't you answer a single question with a simple, straight forward reponse? Why can't you stay on topic? Your posts have nothing to with "Witness To 9/11" and that is what this thread is about. if you want to see the video, just click on the OP's link. see Dave, he put a link to his information. Imagine that.

Dave, it's always interesting responding to you because there is so much to discuss. The only problem I have is that you go against whatever we say. If I am cold, you will be hot and if you were wearing a jacket and I asked to borrow it, you would not take the jacket off. Why Dave? Did I rub you thr wrong way? Not to add to an already sticky situation, is there a right way to rub you? How can I help you come to understand the OS is not true?

So Sanity is back.

Like all other so called "truthers" you avoid to answer very simple questions.

Could you please answer my above questions.

Thank You.

Originally posted by Classified Info

I am in total disagreement with the above comment. If you honestly believe that, I can only conclude that your eyes and mind have been closed to for a long time. In my opinion, he is the most intelligent and fact based poster on this forum. It is obvious truthers can't handle that. If his posts are causing you so much grief it is not Dave's fault but rather your own.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by Classified Info]

[edit on 7/8/2009 by Classified Info]

There is my answer Dave Jr.

Why don't you and Dave start a new thread all about how the FACTS in the OS add up to the events of 9/11. HMMMMM.... I feel like getting some ice cream... nutty-buddy sounds interesting.

Think Green

[edit on 7/15/2009 by Sanity]

Originally posted by Classified Info
So Sanity is back.

Like all other so called "truthers" you avoid to answer very simple questions.

Could you please answer my above questions.

Thank You.

I don't recall you asking me any questions but then again I generally skip your posts and go straight to Daves.

Gotta go, Stewie's over. No reason to keep typig to you. toodles!

BTW, ignorance noted.

Originally posted by impressme
WRONG! Now Dave lets try this again shell we, What does Lee Hamilton have to do with Governor Thomas Kean, truthful comment?

WTF do you mean what does he have to do with it? He has *everything* to do with it. Lee Hamilton wrote the 9/11 commission report WITH Kean, and he wrote "inside the 9/11 commission" book WITH Kean too. They're opinions are one and the same. Note the list of authors-

Kean and Hamilton are homies

Oh, and I just looked this up- Thomas Kean was a paid consultant AND spokesman for the television program "The path to 9/11", which essentially reiterates what the 9/11 commission report says. Kean (nor Hamilton) does NOT, in ANY WAY, even REMOTELY endorse your conspiracy stories, so any attempt by you to imply the contrary will be an outright lie.

Tell yah what Dave, you can stick to these government officials who would never lie to you Dave, but I am not buying any of it.

If you think the gov't officials are lyign to you then why are you not only quoting Thomas Kean, but referring to him as "being truthful"?? And if they're not being truthful, then WHY are they putting an op-ed in the paper complaining about this obstruction?

oh, Dave why didn’t your hero Commissioner Lee Hamilton talk about the discrepancies that they wanted the justices department to look into the lies that where being told to them?

9/11 Commission: Our Investigation Was 'Obstructed'

If you were to have actually read the link, you'd have seen Hamilton did talk about the obstruction. He surmised everyone thought they were spearheading a lynchmob looking to point the finger at someone to hang for sleeping at the wheel on 9/11. they weren't obstructing the investigation to cover up any secret conspiracy. There was obstruction becuase noone wanted to help them put the noose around their own necks.

I do subscribe to the belief there was intentional obstruction, but I likewise subscribe to the viewpoints of the people who were actually involved in the process (like Kean and Hamilton). They were there, you and I weren't. Even you are admitting that Kean's statements are truthful, so where your deviation is coming from is beyond me.

The 911 commission knew they didn’t have the truth, but they went ahead and publish their phony cover-up book of lies knowing full well what they were doing, because they were probably told to, or lose their positions, or even their careers. However, that is my opinion.

These people were elected representatives. They have no "position" to be fired from, other than being voted out of office at the end of their terms.

No Dave, they do not that is your opinion, nothing more Dave.

The quality of your excuses is beginning to deteriorate. Hamilton specifically says in the interview that despite the obstacles he still believes the 9/11 report is as accurate as the commission could make it. It's not MY opinion, it's HIS opinion. It's the whole reason why I posted it.

Why of course not Dave, why would they? Their dictator and parts of his administration probably threaten their careers, if they didn’t tell the story they way the Bush administration wanted it told, they would be finished.

Please give ONE example where a president was EVER able to unseat an elected representative in Congress by presidential decree. ONE. If you can't then please have the decency to abandon this false accusation.

I do not believe lies are acceptable in any debate it serves no purpose but to trip you up in the end, right Dave? As far as “false credibility,” if it is not true then there is no credibility is there Dave? And as far as my quote about Robert Mueller I never lied period.

That's right, you didn't lie. Lying means to knowingly mirepresent the facts, and you were UNKNOWINGLY misrepresenting the facts.

You said you were quoting Rober Mueller, and when we look up the full speech you were supposedly quoting from we see he was actually sayign the exact opposite of what you were attempting to claim he said. This is an irrefutable misrepresentation of the facts, and in the course of this debate it was my obligation to let you know it was a misrepresentation of the facts. Whether you yourself were knowledgable of the fact it was a misrepresentation is really immaterial to me.





[edit on 15-7-2009 by GoodOlDave]

[edit on 15-7-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by tezzajw
That's just a silly statement to make, Dave. Using completely false sentences like that devalues the rest of your 'argument'.

I use it as an example that I show you A and you always seem to have an agenda to interpret it as B. I posted how the people on the commission admitted that despite the obstacles, they still believed the report to be as correct as they can make it, and YOU reinterpret this as, and I quote-

"In your own wonderful way, Dave... you've admitted that the investigations that we got were woeful, lame and possibly hiding important facts that can lead to the truth. "

Claiming "making it as correct as they can make it" is "my wonderful way of admitting" it's the same as "hiding facts that can lead to the truth" is YOUR OWN inventive reinterpretation, not mine.

...and no, I'm not going to get into any discussions over geometry.

Then why did they omit lots of other research? Why was WTC 7 bypassed in the 9/11 Commission Report?

They mentioned that it fell, but they didn't mention how if fell becuase documenting the physics behind the collapses wasn't what the report was for. It was to document who was behind the attack and how they did it. Besides, the "research" you claim they omitted didn't exist to even be included at the time they wrote the report. That all came out a few years later from NIST and FEMA, so that's a creative reinterpretation on your part, as well.

So what actual "documented lies" are there in the report that you're referring to?