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.

 

Heliport ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of northern approach

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Please provide details of your latest theory including number of aircraft, aircraft flight paths, aircraft pilots [if any], planted evidence, and any eyewitnesses you wish to quote.


Aside from being off-topic (in the Boger sense), it also looks to me like a case of this--

en.wikipedia.org...



The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.


It seems to have red shades of herring too, IMHO.

My 2c,
RH




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by djeminy



I read the interview in the link provided.

Hence my question to 9/11files.

You're loosing the plot fox.

[snip]
Terrorist sympathizers are a wee bit on the slow side.

Aside from the obvious ad hominem attack, I'll need to assume the "terrorist sympathizers" is referring to djeminy here, since it was not clearly stated. Do you have any sources or proof for either assertion Cameron?



RH



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 



Haha!

Precisely.

It's always so easy to expose pseudo-skeptics by applying critical thinking principles to their hollow arguments.

pteridine,

It's real simple. Sean Boger and every single first-hand account that exits from eyewitnesses in a position to tell place the plane on the north side approach.

This proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Thanks for participating.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig... you personally verified that Boger watched the plane go into the Pentagon. He said it in November of 2001 and again when you spoke with him.

Thank you once again Champ, for debunking yourself.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

He also verified Boger's NOC claim. That hurts the official story and it seems that other people also agree with Boger about it.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 

I only asked Craig for the latest theory, not the perfect solution. If the theory is NOC, two planes with planted evidence, and holographic missile strike then that is the theory.
If one is to claim conspiracy, one must have some vague idea of what the conspiracy might be and some idea of the course of events. So far there has been a lack of a specific theory and some rather disjointed arguments. I am beginning to suspect that none of the CT folks actually has a coherent theory that they wish to state and examine in light of the evidence.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
So far there has been a lack of a specific theory and some rather disjointed arguments. I am beginning to suspect that none of the CT folks actually has a coherent theory that they wish to state and examine in light of the evidence.


The evidence proves 9/11 was an inside job regardless of what theory you choose to accept or not.

But we have been 100% coherent since day one.

It's not my fault you haven't paid attention.

If you want a full breakdown of our "theory" I suggest you view this full length presentation.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
REPLY TO CF PART 1


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
no, they deduced it.



Originally posted by CameronFox
No, they didn't. They watched the impact. The ones that deduced it are the ones that lost the view of the plane behind trees, or had other obstructions that limited their view of the impact.


who's THEY? oh, you mean the ones that also confirm the NOC path?

LOL


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
but in either case, it wasn't flight 77



Originally posted by CameronFox
Yes, and you have done such an amazing job at proving that haven't you?


To say you're a hypocrite is an understatement. Its hilarious that you believe,, no you're defending a CT thats far more lacking in having proven anything whatsoever. For you to accuse me of proving nothing when what you defend has never been proven to begin with, and in fact has more evidence contradicting it, is laughable.

I don't have to prove what hasn't been proven to begin with.

Aside from basic common sense, there's plenty of scientific/mathematic/fact-based evidence that contradicts the OCT
and claim flight 77 hit the Pent... not to mention the gov and OCTers have yet to show anything resembling flight 77 hitting the pent in their so called video evidence which has evidence of being edited and tampered with.

But since the only ones in possession of this "video" are the feds aka perps, and they refuse to release the original or in full (not even to mention how all other video's from survellence in the area that would have shown clear pictures of what happened were confiscated), it makes it easy for OCT defenders like you to make these ridiculous rhetorical claims that there's no proof and evidence even though there IS evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of tampering.

The burden of proof isn't on me to prove 77 hit the pentagon.

Until you and your perpetrator pals in the gov and media can show me 100% PROOF flight 77 hit the pentagon, explain for starters why frames are missing from the pentacams, why the time-stamped date on the video released doesn't say 9/11/01, and explain tons of other anomalies and unanswered questions and contradictions you should be well aware of if you've done a full investigation and know both sides of the debate, I don't
have to waste my time trying to convince someone as blind or in denial as you are.

so again, the burden of proof is on you to prove the OCT is true... if data and facts and science and math contradict the OCT claims, the OCT is nothing but a mere fantasy that you look so foolish defending.

Its so funny how you and most who defend the OCT lie which has far less evidence and far more holes than firing range backboard,
can so easily dismiss and ignore that fact, yet at the same time
attack and refuse to apply the same standard of proof you claim and accuse truthers of failing to do.

the claim that there's contradictions, unexplained anomalies, basic unanswered questions and flaws in the science and math of the OCT, isn't an opinion.. its based on fact.

its comical that people like you find nothing out of the ordinary or unusual and suspect with all these contradictions, anomalies etc. and instead attack and accuse those of ASKING THESE QUESTIONS and pointing out irrefutable contradictions, of not being able to PROVE IT.

PROVE WHAT? In what way?

Common sense, circumstancial evidence alone, proves beyond a doubt 911 was an inside job.

Norman Minetas testimony alone proves beyond a doubt inside job or at the very least implicates Cheney enough to bring an indictement in a normal court of law who would mostly likely be able to convict on just the basic evidence.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
CF part2


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
they either weren't in a position to, or they deduced another scenario based on the confusion.



Originally posted by CameronFox
Are you serious?? Try reading or watching the CIT propaganda.


I have. And from all the evidence and arguments craig, cit, truthers et al have put forth, it overwhelmingly shows these "witnesses" either deduced it as its been argued and/or were part of the cover up.

The NOC flight path has been proven beyond and shows a deliberate deception.

if the plane was ANYWHERE on the north side as unanimously claimed by all the witnesses, and proven possible by math, it proves it did not hit the building.

they've presented a logical sound and reasonable argument that demonstrates how many of the so called witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon were not in a position to see the Pentagon at all and really just deduced the impact.

Just because you don't agree, doesn't disprove anything.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
key word LITTERED, yes... or IOW, the code word for littered is planted.
so yeah, they littered debris everywhere.



Originally posted by CameronFox
Wake up sir. You tell me how thousands of pounds of debris were planted inside a building that was just hit by a multi -ton aircraft... (or a bomb for you no-planers)


HELLLLLO Mcfly... why don't YOU show me verifiable evidence and proof thousands of pounds of debris WAS found/recovered.

but then i guess the sarcasm went way over your head... like the NOC flight path


Originally posted by CameronFox
Look at how quickly the fire department was on the scene. Did they mention anyone running around a burning building with plane parts?


ur kidding, right?

the sad thing is i don't think you are.

and if any did, we either don't know about it, or it'd be ignored/denied by perpetrator defenders just as many fightfighters at the WTC were when they made statements that contradicted the OCT.

so i don't see how your point proves or disproves anything either way.

quite useless really


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
but no debris was from flight 77



Originally posted by CameronFox
Once again, let me commend you on the abundance of evidence you have provided to confirm this statement.


i suppose i could easily hit "search" and pull up tons of threads and pages of evidence thats been discussed and presented ad naseum, but i suppose i'm just getting tired of wasting my time playing this little game with someone who denys, and ignores the evidence and facts, and lacks any common sense.

i wouldn't doubt if the perpetrators themselves actually came forward and admitted inside job, you'd still find some way to claim it proves nothing.

but whats even more hypocritical is how much leeway and merit you're willing to give those pushing the OCT lie.

So once again, although there is evidence to support what i've asserted, no verifiable independent evidence has ever been given to begin with on the debris issue.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
even if the report is true, we're supposed to blindly trust/accept that report? a report from the pentagon?? LOL



Originally posted by CameronFox
typical truther; hand waving of evidence. You obviously have not looked into the Pentagon attack other than what you buy from snake oil salesmen.


typical blind OCT supporter

Unlike you, I've done a full objective investigation and analysis on both sides of the the argument in nearly every area on 911 including
this one. I could use your ad hom logic and claim the same thing about you, but its pointless really since you're obviously too close to the trees to see the forest and either haven't done enough research, are in
denial, or part of the cover-up.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

I don't have to prove what hasn't been proven to begin with.


You and all of your rantings have done nothing but showed your opinion. Do you care to actually back anything up? You can call me anything you want. You're still wrong.


Aside from basic common sense, there's plenty of scientific/mathematic/[sic]fact-based evidence that contradicts the OCT


Really? Funny...nothing I have seen published in a respectable journal. You have a link to this "fact based" evidence?




Common sense, circumstancial[sic] evidence alone, proves beyond a doubt 911 was an inside job.


hehehehe... that's funny.


Norman Minetas testimony alone proves beyond a doubt inside job or at the very least implicates Cheney enough to bring an indictement [sic]in a normal court of law who would mostly likely be able to convict on just the basic evidence.


Here is some info on Mineta. Try reading it. Please pay attention. Sorry MODS & CIT for the derail. IF sir, you have further questions, please start a thread. I will join you there.

The Mineta story is often presented as though it's clear and definitive fact, but as we've seen, if you take a close look at the details then major problems emerge.

* Mineta said that when he arrived people were "pouring out of the Executive Office building", "running out of the White House" and "running over towards Lafayette Park". This is a very accurate description of what happened after the Pentagon was hit, and precisely no-one describes it happening any earlier. It's clear evidence that Mineta arrived after the Pentagon was hit.

* Mineta said that, before he left for the White House, "Jane Garvey had phoned to report that the CEO of Delta Airlines had called the FAA and said it could not yet account for all of its aircraft". Mineta places the event well before 9:20, then, yet the only other account we've found for this says it occurred after the Pentagon was hit.

* Richard Clarke tells us Mineta wasn't at the White House when his teleconference begins. He puts this well before 9:28 in his book, but the content says it must have been later, most probably after the Pentagon was hit.

* At least two media reports tell us that Mineta did not give the 9:45 ground stop order, and that he wasn't in contact with the FAA until some minutes later. This doesn't fit with his claims of a 9:20 PEOC arrival - it would mean he took 30 minutes or more to call the FAA - but makes sense if he did arrive after the Pentagon was hit.

* Mineta reportedly said that Lynn Cheney was in the PEOC when he arrived. The 9/11 Commission place her arrival at 9:52, though, and since 2001 she's consistently said she arrived after the Pentagon was hit. Another indication that Mineta did, too.

And there's plenty more. How could Mineta could cancel a meeting, make at least two important phone calls, discuss the situation with his staff, go to his car, take a 7 minute drive to the White House, spend 4 or 5 minutes with Richard Clarke and be escorted to the PEOC in only 17 minutes? How can anyone claim that Jane Garvey could leave Mineta's office at 9:03, return to the FAA, be briefed on events, call Mineta's office, then join Richard Clarke's teleconference and be "frantically" looking for Mineta at 9:10 or 9:15? Why is it that no-one else backs up Mineta's story of the "young man"'s conversation with Cheney occurring for Flight 77?

The reality is that Mineta's account doesn't make sense. Not because the 9/11 Commission says so; his own retelling of events gives us the information we need to say he was mistaken, and arrived at the White House long after 9:20. And that's why, with the current information, we believe the simpler explanation is more likely to be true: Cheney arrived in the shelter preceding the PEOC at 9:37, Mineta came later, and the conversation he overheard did not refer to Flight 77.

This is such an important issue that you really shouldn't rely on these pages alone, though. Get out there, read the contrary views, see if they can deal with the points we raise, or have compelling new arguments of their own. A quick Google search will deliver plenty of information, but if you don't have time to browse then start with Peter Dale Scott's Journal of 9/11 Studies piece, Adam Letalik's paper at the same site, or this George Washington blog entry. Read, consider, check references to articles to be sure you're getting the whole picture: and make up your own mind.

-Mike W of 911 myths.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
pt 3of3


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
need i remind you of all the missing or altered video evidence?



Originally posted by CameronFox
No need not remind me of anything. What you need to do is support your claim with some evidence. So far you have done nothing but puffed your feathers,stuck out your chest, and called me a disinfo agent.


evidence of tampering and editing of the pentagon footage exists... if you still insist i'd be happy to repost the relevant threads which discuss it ad naseum. But since I don't know how you couldn't have already seen the evidence i'm talking about and would deny it again anyways, whats the point?
So you're seriously telling me you don't find anything unusual about the time stamp or evidence of missing frames? Are you claiming there's no evidence, or the evidence is imaginary and the questions
about this and pointing this out have been debunked and answered?


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
i don't even know why i'm answering, or attempting to debate a shill or disinfo agent.



Originally posted by CameronFox
You're not answering anything. Your attempt at a discussion has so far been terrible.


I simply haven't felt any real need to regurgitate the BASIC evidence anyone with a brain who's done basic research should already know. Nor have i wanted to waste my time attempting to have intelligent discourse with someone in as much denial as you are.

Your game and tactics are beyond transparent and its amazing that so many here continue wasting so much bandwidth debating with someone that denys basic evidence and facts, has no common sense and no real interest in the truth. You pretend to be a sincere objective truthseeker, but
you're nothing of the sort.

now and then i'll reply for amusement, but usually i end up realizing its just too easy and wasn't really worth the comedy.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
that bs myth has been debunked plenty of times



Originally posted by CameronFox
This is what you call a debate? Hand waving? Can you please show me how this has been debunked?


can you please show me independent verifiable evidence to support the OCT story about DNA you claim is true?


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
you act as though there's been no contradictory evidence to the phone calls.



Originally posted by CameronFox
I haven't seen any


realllly? are you playing dumb or are you actually claiming there's no contradictory evidence to the phone calls and you haven't seen any arguments or discussions about this "evidence"?

wow. and you tout yourself as an objective truthseeker who's done serious research?

what a joke.

see previous answer for a response to your remark. i'm getting tired of repeating myself and spending time attempting to educate someone that denies evidence and facts or plays dumb and semantic games.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
PFT exposed that myth as well



Originally posted by CameronFox
No, PFT did nothing of the sort. PFT is a pack of incapable imbeciles.


so you say without any proof whatsoever mr hypocrite


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
If you want to call corroborated eye-witness evidence a fanstasy,fine.



Originally posted by CameronFox
I didn't call the eyewitnesses a fantasy. I said the flyover theory was a fantasy. Try to keep up.


with what?

i'm keeping up with what you're specifically talking about since you didn't clarify what exactly you were talking about. So you make a half-ass comment, i'm gonna give a half-ass response.


Originally posted by CameronFox
But you see, my opinion DOES matter. As poor of a job you did, you took time to attempt to refute my facts.


what facts?



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
I don't have to prove what hasn't been proven to begin with.



Originally posted by CameronFox
You and all of your rantings have done nothing but showed your opinion.


Its not my OPINION that theres serious flaws, unanswered questions, holes and contradictions occurring over and over throughout the OCT story.

Its a FACT.


Originally posted by CameronFox
Do you care to actually back anything up? You can call me anything you want. You're still wrong


which is nothing more than YOUR opinion now isn't camy?

but the thing is mr fox, that if i can show a even ONE contradiction, unexplained flaw or problem with any claims in the OCT, then the logic you're attempting to use and imply, is totally destroyed and completely worthless if not just proof in of itself that 911 was an inside job.

Now I know for a fact that there's literally thousands of threads on various topics discussing the evidence,, most of which i've never seen you apart of.

so you see mr fox, the burden of proof isn't on us, its on the government to provide enough evidence to prove the official story is true and they've failed miserably.

Furthermore P4T and CIT alone, present enough information to prove the official pent story false. If you want to believe the lie that most doing a full investigation and use basic common sense can see thru, thats your choice and knock yourself out.

but the bottom line is until ALL the major contradictions and problems plaguing the OCT the fools whos blindly support it are answered line by line or each issue that documentaries like SEPT CLUES addresses are countered and disproven line by line, the assertion that EVIDENCE exists that overwhelmingly proves beyond a doubt 911 was an inside job, isn't an OPINION; its a FACT with proven references including video/visual evidence that to date been irrefutable.

the more you defend the OCT, the more foolish you look, the more obvious it is you're not a reasonable person, and the deeper a hole you dig for yourself.

pack it up son.. the jig is up and you know it. There's way too many problems with the OCT and you nor anyone has even remotely begun to address them let alone explain them. I know its difficult and uncomfortable to accept you've been deceived, but don't blame us for pointing it out if you're just too blind to see it.

Throughout the 911 debate, those defending the OCT have barely scratched the surface in addressing all the contradictions and problems.

You can either address, debunk, and explain ALL the evidence claimed to be proving conspiracy, or you can't.

if you can't, then there's no possible way you or anyone can claim to be a reasonable person while at the same time cherry-picking what you attempt to refute.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
Aside from basic common sense, there's plenty of scientific/math/fact-based evidence that contradicts the OCT


Really? Funny.. nothing I have seen published in a respectable journal. You have a link to this "fact based" evidence?

hang on there sparky,, what do you deem RESPECTABLE or CREDIBLE?

popular mechanics?

ROTFLMFAO!

Common sense alone, proves inside job


Originally posted by CameronFox
hehe. that's funny


But true


Originally posted by matrixNIN11Norman Minetas testimony alone proves beyond a doubt inside job or at the very least implicates Cheney enough to bring an indictement in a normal court of law who would mostly likely be able to convict on just the basic evidence


=========
Mineta said that when he arrived people were "pouring out. It's clear evidence that Mineta arrived after the Pentagon was hit."
=========

first off, whats the page link, and whats mikes referenced source/s?

2nd, have YOU checked, verified and read it?

3rd, are you calling mineta a liar?

so whens the trial?



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
Norman Minetas testimony alone proves beyond a doubt inside job or at the very least implicates Cheney enough to bring an indictement in a normal court of law who would mostly likely be able to convict on just the basic evidence


So....why are you still here on an internet discussion board? Why are you not out with the CIT Boys and the P4T Sky Kings calling *every* lawyer in the nation to get this indictment rolling?

These Legal Rambos on the Internet do nothing but add to the rather significant mirth factor surrounding the whole Troother movement. They are so quick to make statements like the one above, so confident in their claims as they pop another root beer and then go on to their next discussion board post, all the while never intending to do *anything* to right this travesty of justice. Oh, the horror!

If Mineta's testimony alone proves beyond doubt an inside job, then leave ATS and go tell the world! They'll listen, since you claim that his words alone prove beyond doubt an inside job.

Unless of course you don't have the power of your beliefs. In that case, pop another root beer.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

words, rants, opinions.....etc


Do you read what you post? Really? You sat up last night using up quite a bit a band width offering nothing to support your argument.

You see, the "OS", "OCT"..etc has been proven with evidence. This evidence was presented in a trial and used to convict. You, like the other paranoid, delusional kids that make up the dying 911 truth movement need to offer evidence to support your claim.

Where were you during the trial Zaccarius Moussaoui? You will do nothing but chant "kangaroo court" without looking into it. It's ok though, it's what people like you do.

There is another trial coming up for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. What will you and the other terrorist sympathizers be doing to help this man? You all feel there is enough evidence to convict the US government. When will you be contacting his attorneys and present this evidence to them?


3rd, are you calling mineta a liar?

so whens the trial?


You obviously did not read the information I provided. I never even implied that he was lying.

If I post links, will you read them? Since they don't come from the propagandists at Pilots4911 Truth, you will probably ignore all of it.

Mineta was obviously confused regarding the time. This is clearly pointed out with his jam packed time line.

There are countless references:

David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor

60 Minutes II (8:00 PM ET) - CBS October 24, 2001 Wednesday

9/11 Commission Report:
govinfo.library.unt.edu...

Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, Charlie Savage

Acadmey of Achievement
www.achievement.org...

The Daily Californian
www.dailycal.org...

Interview with MSNBC:
www.msnbc.com...

Read some of them and play close attention to this part:

The second impact at the WTC occurred at around 9:02:59, for instance, and Mineta told the 9/11 Commission that he reached the White House at 9:20: around 17 minutes later. He was in his office during the second impact. Look at what he did during those 17+ minutes including a 7 minute ride to the White House.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
Norman Minetas testimony alone proves beyond a doubt inside job or at the very least implicates Cheney enough to bring an indictement in a normal court of law who would mostly likely be able to convict on just the basic evidence


So....why are you still here on an internet discussion board? Why are you not out with the CIT Boys and the P4T Sky Kings calling *every* lawyer in the nation to get this indictment rolling?

These Legal Rambos on the Internet do nothing but add to the rather significant mirth factor surrounding the whole Troother movement. They are so quick to make statements like the one above, so confident in their claims as they pop another root beer and then go on to their next discussion board post, all the while never intending to do *anything* to right this travesty of justice. Oh, the horror!

If Mineta's testimony alone proves beyond doubt an inside job, then leave ATS and go tell the world! They'll listen, since you claim that his words alone prove beyond doubt an inside job.

Unless of course you don't have the power of your beliefs. In that case, pop another root beer.


do you ever get tired of playing this charade pinch?

so you're telling me minetas testimony under oath in congress IN PUBLIC stating more than clearly cheney (even being quoted) gave orders to STAND DOWN as an "unknown" jet was heading toward the pentagon is not usual or enough alone to spur a major investigation.

talk about lack of interest which alone should be a dead giveaway there's a major conspiracy at the highest levels to protect cheney aka one of the perps.

you and camy assert discrepencies of time etc... for now i'll just respond by asking how that negates or dismisses the fact he's on record specifically QUOTING Cheney which if true is an obvious act of treason.

your logic asserts that if its so obvious, why wouldn't cheney be in jail or that it should be "easy" for a lawyer to prosecute.

with all thats been exposed about the Governments and MSM's involvement as well as CONTROL at the highest levels including CIA, FBI, NSA etc, why would you expect anyone to investigate a system when THAT SYSTEM is controlled/manipulated by those who created it and are above it?

thats one very logical reason for why nothings been officially investigated, why so many contradictions and questions are still unanswered, and why 911 may never be properly investigated or exposed officially.

Not to mention that such an exposure would probably cause the SYSTEM to collapse and martial law declared to maintain order.

Inside Job implicates those RUNNING AND CONTROLLING the US Gov and MSM. That power base is ABOVE THE LAW so i doubt any normal court of law could ever or would ever attempt to truly take them on. And the Perps have that huge advantage. So to challenge me and others like CIT to take on these powers that be, is beyond unreasonable and INSANE.

but then you already KNOW that, don't U Pinch?

So again, is Mineta lying? Is there reason to suspect he was making up or had the facts wrong about his account?

In one sense, what we may have is another mexican stand-off like boger confirming the NOC but also saying he saw an impact.

one account disproves the other. Or does it?

as to boger, i say his confirmation of the NOC is far more powerful evidence than what he says about the impact since its far more possible imo that he either deduced it as explained by cit et al, or he was part of the cover-up and didn't realize that by confirming the NOC it would contradict what he claims to have seen and by then was too late to change his story.

bottom line again though,,, Those who pulled off 911 would easily have the ability to ACCESS or manipulate the SYSTEM and courts to protect them.

why?

because they ARE THE SYSTEM.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Making sure you are marginalized would be a much more time consuming job if you weren't so good at doing it yourself!

So marginalizing people is your job then pinch. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone (but I think some of us have suspected as much for a while).

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
On Mineta and timelines, a quick search found these 3 older threads (or topics) here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
[snip]
If I post links, will you read them? Since they don't come from the propagandists at Pilots4911 Truth, you will probably ignore all of it.

Mineta was obviously confused regarding the time. This is clearly pointed out with his jam packed time line.

There are countless references:

David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor
[snip]

While it's completely off-topic (and argumentum ad hominem for that matter) have you got anything to support your "propagandists" assertion above Cameron?

Also could you save us some time and point us to specifics in your "countless" references? I don't have Griffin's book and don't generally watch 60 Minutes, and there are many pages in that 911 Commission Report. I seem to recall another of Griffin's books not being very supportive of the Commission Report (I think the title was something about Omission Report).



www.scribd.com...


www.scribd.com...

[edit on 16-2-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
and this link you found is one relevant in clarifying some of the time issue which doesn't seem to be refuted at all really. So until i see more proof norman was lying or had any reason to say something took place that really didn't, its only reasonable to accept his account imo. I suppose pinch wants to believe norman was recounting an imaginary exchange with cheney so I don't see how the time issue negates that which was my point.

www.abovetopsecret.com...





Originally posted by rhunter

Originally posted by CameronFox
[snip]
If I post links, will you read them? Since they don't come from the propagandists at Pilots4911 Truth, you will probably ignore all of it.

Mineta was obviously confused regarding the time. This is clearly pointed out with his jam packed time line.

There are countless references:

David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor
[snip]

While it's completely off-topic (and argumentum ad hominem for that matter) have you got anything to support your "propagandists" assertion above Cameron?

Also could you save us some time and point us to specifics in your "countless" references? I don't have Griffin's book and don't generally watch 60 Minutes, and there are many pages in that 911 Commission Report. I seem to recall another of Griffin's books not being very supportive of the Commission Report (I think the title was something about Omission Report).



www.scribd.com...


www.scribd.com...

[edit on 16-2-2009 by rhunter]



new topics




 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join