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.

 

Apalling argumentative skills

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
That was a very informative post.




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs


i'm not real sure about something here.are you saying that most of the ats' ers on either side,of the 911 debate.should be concerned, that
they have made some assistant collegiate debate coach(of around 8 yrs]sad. no wonder your advice is to just walk away.
is this a fulltime occupation for you? if so ,it sounds like a dead end job.





[edit on 21-7-2009 by randyvs]


LOL!

My post was simply intended as advice (rather or not it is good advice or not can be debated) as to how people who are really concerned with trying to find the truth and trying to convince people of their points can better do so. I simply said I was sad to see how people were too quick to resort to attacking each other instead of making warranted arguments, and that these strategies had the unintended effect of chasing many people away from your argument.

Now, perhaps I over estimated how many people are actually on ATS in search of the truth. If so, I apologize. Yet I see no need for the sarcasm you levy for merely trying to make the debate more about the facts and less about the debaters.

Also, I don't believe my advice was merely to walk away from the debate, my advice was to not engage in personal attacks. If this is seen as cowardice and walking away, thats fine by me. I have no desire to try to appear macho on this board. As I said before, I'm actually here to learn. What I said was these types of arguments were driving other people away from the debate who actually wanted to hear about 9-11 and not personal attacks.

For the record, my job is part time, and it probably is a dead end. But in this economy, who can complain.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious


First, thanks for reminding me why I never participated in college debate activities.


Why is that? Decorum and civility and focus on argumentation of substance rather than attacks on each other?


Second, are you sure 'Argumentative Skills' is an appropriate title? (As opposed to Debate Skills)


Not really important, but ad hom attacks are commonly referred to as an argument strategy, hence my choice. But I suppose I could have called it that.


Third, this is an internet discussion forum, much different than a live podium opposing smack-down. Inasmuch as we all enjoy the equal anonymity afforded by the veil of screen names and Avatars, these exchanges are the battle-ground and words and logic are our only weapon. We are not afforded the "live" experience offered by face-to-face debate, posture, eye contact, body language, timing, delivery, tone and poker faces. There is no clear winner selected by non partisan judges.


Agreed. Words and logic are the only weapon on this forum. How is that a defense of being condescending to your opponent and making personal attacks towards them? If anything, its even more important in an online forum because you don't know who your audience is. To engage in such practices may have the consequences of having some of the readers of your posts disregard your logic because of the tone that your personal attacks have set, which was what I was trying to convey in the OP.

As far as the winning, all I can say that I am unconcerned with the idea of a win in an argument on ATS (well I try to be). Instead I am more concerned with trying to find the truth. Having said that, I think that people should use ATS for whatever reason they like, and if gamesmanship and winning arguments is one of those reason, the more power to you (hopefully I am not way off base with what your saying here). I was simply trying to give advice to people that actually wanted to find the truth in arguments as their main reason for being here. However, I believe the advice in the OP would also serve to help more people perceive your argument as a win.





And while I agree that civility and decorum should be paramount, I personally enjoy the intensity of a heated discussion which can often get feisty.


I understand completely. I admit to sometimes getting amused by the back and forth jibs that occur. What I was saying was that I have noticed an absurd number of those in the 9-11 forum, and more importantly that if your intended purpose for your post is to convince your "opponent" of your points, its probably not the effective strategy.

I also don't think that there is a correlation between not making personal attacks at people and debates not being feisty. I see no reason someone cannot have a passionate heated debate without hurling insults at each other.


In my opinion, the rules of collegiate debate share few commonalities to the passionate sometimes heated exchanges of this forum. I am not here for niceties or honing my etiquette skills.

I enjoy the unique blend of role-playing, anger management, sarcasm and logic presented here. Governed by the high standards of moderation and T & C enforcement. It ain't Vanilla Ice cream and Martha Stewart, and I'm thankful for that.


Nothing I mentioned in the OP is a rule in collegiate debate, nor do I think collegiate debate rules should apply here. In fact that would be awful. I merely mentioned my personal situation in debate to perhaps show that I have actually seen this situation play out many times.

I also sincerely appreciate the fact that you enjoy some of the things that I was perhaps suggesting to control. Thats what makes ATS great, that everyone can get something different out of it.

To make it clear, I was merely making suggestions on providing an effective argument, I was not (nor would I ever) claiming that some things should be discontinued. In fact, I never have made a T & C complaint, and probably don't think I ever will.


Of course, I am probably being a "troll" as you call it.


Not at all, I rather enjoyed most of your post.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Grambler]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not only did they tell those particular first-responders not to come, Rudy Giuliani testified to there being a FEMA bio-terror drill scheduled for Sept. 12th that had them setting up a command post inside of WTC7 on September 10th. So FEMA was actually in WTC7 the evening before 9/11 setting up a command post, is the effective and practical truth of those "bio-terror exercises" that never actually happened, obviously. They used the command post to operate out of during the 9/11 attacks obviously, for FEMA, OEM and Giuliani's office to keep radio contact with police, firefighters and EMS, basically taking the role as the acting authority over all those groups since FEMA is a federal agency.


I wanted to consider this carefully, so I looked into the facts behind this and I believe you're making it out to be more of a "coincidence" than it really is. I'm going by the very statement of Guliani you're referring to-

"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."

From this, we can see right away that...

a) FEMA wasn't there for a counter sabotage exercise. It was for a counter biochemical attack exercise. 95% of what they were gearing up to do there was a wasted effort for what they actually wound up doing there.

b) Guliani himself said the main benefit was that it gave them somewhat of a head start for organizing a place where communications and organization effors could be centralized after the former command center in WTC 7 was destroyed...but that's about all. At the end of the day it was a bit player in the events of 9/11 so I don't see how FEMA being in the neighborhood is supposedly such a sinister thing.

c) Guliani himself said it wasn't just a handful of guys, but hundreds of people from many Federal, state, and local agencies (inluding agencies from NYC). This gets back to the "how secret could this conspiracy possibly be if so many people were involved in it" argument all over again.

d) looking at the FEMA website, I see it's even less of a coincidence becuase FEMA was organizing drills all over the place at the same time, not just in NYC. They were holding a counter terrorism exercise in Texas on Sept 5-

FEMA in Texas

...as well as holding a nuclear power plant disaster in Vermont on Sept 11-

FEMA in Vermont

F.Y.I FEMA was in Washington, D.C. as well (a stone's throw away from the Pentagon), but they were there becuase of flooding issues.

FEMA in D.C.

...and you know as well as I do that claiming FEMA staged a storm to flood D.C. as a cover story to be in the vicinity of the Pentagon on Sept. 11 sound pretty silly.

e) The reason why this wasn't included in the commission report should be obvious- that's not what the 9/11 commission report was set up to document. It was to document who did it and how they did it, not details of the disaster relief.

Unless you have something tangible that specifically showed FEMA had prior knowledge of the attack other than just innuendo, based upon the above facts I am going to have to take the position that it was a coincidence. Coincidences do in fact occur, otherwise the word "coincidence" wouldn't be in the English language.

I invite you to point out why anything I said here is incorrect.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

a) FEMA wasn't there for a counter sabotage exercise. It was for a counter biochemical attack exercise. 95% of what they were gearing up to do there was a wasted effort for what they actually wound up doing there.


Kind of amazing they were there for a biochemical attack, yet we let the first responders and clean up crew breathe in toxic air.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
From this, we can see right away that...

a) FEMA wasn't there for a counter sabotage exercise. It was for a counter biochemical attack exercise. 95% of what they were gearing up to do there was a wasted effort for what they actually wound up doing there.


Who's to say all the really needed was the "5%"? That everything else had already been set up by other means, or by other people in other places (NORAD, anyone doing "dirty business" at the Port Authority, etc.)? No one so far as I have seen.


b) Guliani himself said the main benefit was that it gave them somewhat of a head start for organizing a place where communications and organization effors could be centralized after the former command center in WTC 7 was destroyed...but that's about all. At the end of the day it was a bit player in the events of 9/11 so I don't see how FEMA being in the neighborhood is supposedly such a sinister thing.


Because they are a federal agency that would have had authority in an emergency situation, ie 9/11. And they did. It would only take a few federal guys at most to have enough knowledge to steer things in the right direction, and if this was the case, this is exactly the kind of place you would want to look for that kind of "oversight." And they were there in advance, so no one else at the scene could get a head's up on them. Compare to how notoriously late they were to responding to Katrina. Something a lot different happened on 9/11, huh?


c) Guliani himself said it wasn't just a handful of guys, but hundreds of people from many Federal, state, and local agencies (inluding agencies from NYC). This gets back to the "how secret could this conspiracy possibly be if so many people were involved in it" argument all over again.


The bio-terror drill cover wouldn't be something they would just tell us, they would tell their whole staffs, etc. No reason to think otherwise, that's standard procedure. You don't spill any information to anybody who doesn't need it to do their job. So even the guys in charge of FEMA wouldn't even know the whole story, only a bigger part of it than everyone under them, which may well be not much of anything at all.


e) The reason why this wasn't included in the commission report should be obvious- that's not what the 9/11 commission report was set up to document. It was to document who did it and how they did it, not details of the disaster relief.


It's because of this kind of thinking, that we already know who it was before we even go into an investigation, that 'we're just going to write about "who did it,"' is exactly why I never read it.


Unless you have something tangible that specifically showed FEMA had prior knowledge of the attack other than just innuendo, based upon the above facts I am going to have to take the position that it was a coincidence.


You ask for information I could never supply and then say you're just going to have faith that it was a coincidence. You're not just ignorant of any facts to be had, you're too apathetic to even ask for them. Just because you have so much trust and faith in government agencies like FEMA doesn't mean everyone else does.


And yes, "coincidence" is a word because it is an idea. "Creationism" and "Darwinism" are also two words that represent mutually exclusive ideas. So the existence of a word doesn't prove the objectivity of whatever idea it refers to. I still don't believe in coincidences.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to


(rather or not it is good advice or not can be debated
post by Grambler
well i think it's great advice.
 
ok umm, well eh. very well then. actually i thought it would be
fun to see if i could get to you. it seems i made a feeble attempt. so well done. carry on.



[edit on 23-7-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BAZ752
 



because of sensitive thin skinned feelings easily hurt people conplaining about verbal abuse they have suffered is why it is monitored



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Kind of amazing they were there for a biochemical attack, yet we let the first responders and clean up crew breathe in toxic air.


All one needs to do is review the events of the time to see the primary focus on everyone's mind was to rescue the victims still trapped in the wreckage. There weren't too many survivors, but a few did survive. I don't think the problem with the air was even fully understood until much later.

Yeah, it's easy to sit at home relaxed with a cup of coffee and rationalize what other people should or shouldn't do, but if you were one of those people standing amid acres of smoking wreckage and you were hearing metallic tapping from people trapped in the wreckage below you, what would you do? Seriously?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Ok, then I'm curious what excuses you can think of when you read things like this:

THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.�known as the �Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,� according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.


What do you mean, "excuses"'? It says right in the article the place is where pilots from other countries are being sent for training. It even says two of the hijackers used to be Saudi Air force pilots. That explains right there why they were there- the Saudi gov't sent them there back when they were in the Saudi service. It would be really, really weird for the military to be an intentional participant because they're openly admitting all of this and are cooperating with the investigation.

All you've done with this is to prove there really were foreign hijackers with the specialized piloting skills to pull off the 9/11 attack. You do realize that, right?


The major media has never attempted to follow those lines of investigation from everything I have seen, even without knowing any details of the issue yet.


ALL right then, give it to Michael Moore. You know as well as I do that he doesn't care about shoving microphones in people's faces and asking embarrassing questions.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Kind of amazing they were there for a biochemical attack, yet WElet the first responders and clean up crew breathe in toxic air.


What is this "WE" *&@#$ ?

Speak for yourself brother.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by QweeQwa
 


My bad you were handing out respirators and air filters.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Seventh
In one easy statement... if the commission was solely based on finding out the truth why were 503 1st responders blocked from going?.


For the obvious reason that the commission was simply unable to interview everyone in the world. They interviewed the NYPD, the NYFD, the NYPA, the FAA, NORAD, the airforce, gov't officials, baggage handlers, etc etc etc, many of whom responded before your first responders did.

What are you anticipating that any of these 503 first responders would say that'd contradict what the 9/11 commisison report contains, exactly?





"For the obvious reason that the commission was simply unable to interview the world"...lol...pathetic...obviously....That is the kind of excuse YOU would tell a 4 year old because YOU can't be bothered

They are the FIRST people they should have talked to...and they did, but the ONLY testimonies they recognize were from the TEN out of 503, that SUPPORT the 'official' story...all the rest were ignored


here is section of one of the testimonies, word for word, they DIDN'T listen to...

1]Angel Rivera FDNY
evacuating the Marriott Hotel
Explosions BEFORE any tower falls

(pg4)
"We were there
about ten minutes before the chief told us go to
the Marriott Hotel, go from the 14th floor up,
search and evacuate all the floors.
So we walk all the way up, no problem.
Then we hear the explosion and debris falling.
We were looking out of the windows and see body
parts all over the place. It was scary. It was
very sad.
We searched 14, 15, went in one lobby,
we came out the other way, we went in one
stairway, came up -- when we hit the 19th floor,
something horrendous happened. It was like a
bomb went off. We thought we were dead.
The whole building shook. The brick
coming out of -- the door to the hallway into the
hotel blew off like somebody had thrown it all
over the place. It shook all over the place. We
were thrown on the floor. We looked inside the lobby after
everything calmed down, and everything was
collapsed."

(pg5)
"The building was still shaking and
we're still hearing explosions going on everywhere, so we decided let's get out of here. We ran all the way down to the fourth floor where we ran out of stairs. There were no more stairs. We met on that floor, and we were all safe. We were all like-we could have been over here. What happened, we looked out of the window of the hotel, the wall, practically, because the window was all blown up. There was no way out. The only way out was the roof rope."


First tower falls-(pg7)

"and then the most horrendous thing happened. That's
when hell came down. It was like a huge,
enormous explosion. I still can hear it.
Everything shook. Everything went black. The
wind rushed, very slowly [sound], all the dust,
all the-and everything went dark.
We were rolling all over the floor,
banging against the walls. I thought I was alone. I thought I was buried alive."

Second tower falls-(pg.9)

"When the second tower came down, we had
no idea what was going on. We thought another
plane, another bomb, another as a second device.
We thought, this is it, we are dead.
When that happened, as I told you
before, everything was black. It was like being
inside a storm or volcano or something, something
horrendous. We said we're going to die."

So finally we
found out where there was a beam. Maybe God put
it there. It was an enormous beam about 20 feet
away from us that was against the building but to
the level where we were, like it started where we
were, all the way to the ground.
One of the guys said, "This is our way
out." So we all went that way.(pg10)


sourc e

That was MY version of attack and defend

I countered a claim and gave a reason along with a source

NOW it's YOUR turn...



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jprophet420

Kind of amazing they were there for a biochemical attack, yet we let the first responders and clean up crew breathe in toxic air.


All one needs to do is review the events of the time to see the primary focus on everyone's mind was to rescue the victims still trapped in the wreckage. There weren't too many survivors, but a few did survive. I don't think the problem with the air was even fully understood until much later.


Three days later...That's when the EPA LIED and gave their "all clear" so they could open up Wall Street...even though their testing proved otherwise


HOW many now are DEAD and dying?...ALL the dogs that were used are dead



Yeah, it's easy to sit at home relaxed with a cup of coffee and rationalize what other people should or shouldn't do


Yes...isn't it



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11

e) The reason why this wasn't included in the commission report should be obvious- that's not what the 9/11 commission report was set up to document. It was to document who did it and how they did it, not details of the disaster relief.


TO which almost EVERYONE involved with it says, it was a whitewash...

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were “set up to fail” and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was ‘far from the truth

source



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jprophet420
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Okay, fine, but these links do nothing to refute what the 9/11 commission report covered. They either discuss the specific physical mechanics of the collapses, which the reports weren't set up to discuss to begin with, or they mention the aircraft were seen on radar, which noone is refuting becuase the problem was identifying their radar return amongst the cloud of other radar returns,


problem identifying?....that's funny, 'cause I have the NORAD tapes, and NORAD launched 2 fighters as soon as they realized a 'blip' was heading toward Washington...but when NEADS handed of Quit 1-2, to Washington, they were TURNED around and sent over the ocean, only to have NEADS, take back control and sent them back, with afterburners, to Washington

13:37:11
NEADS takes direct control of QUIT 2-5 and 2-6 away from Giant Killer. Advises they are going direct to Washington with after-burners. Giant Killer advises they are handing them off to Center at that time. MCC OP

13:41:52
“They are headed there now…freaking Giant Killer in their wisdom sent them out over the water, when we scrambled them to Washington.” SD2 OP

13:43:24
“Giant killer…we scrambled them out to Washington. Langley, Giant Killer sent them out over the water.” SD2 OP


Langley fighters were handed off by the Langley TRACON to Giant Killer instead of the Washington ARTCC. Giant Killer followed the SOP for airspace under its control and sent the fighters out over the Atlantic. NEADS was very specific in where to send the fighters which would have required a hand off to the Washington ARTCC, and it is not clear at this point why that did not happen. Once the error has been noted and corrected by NEADS, it is at least three minutes before the planes are turned to the north and then only after NEADS takes direct control from Giant Killer. At 13:49:26 Washington ARTCC calls NEADS wanting to know what the planes are entering their airspace (squawking 7777). So undoubtedly, something has gone very wrong with the handoff by Giant Killer to Washington ARTCC. What many have not understood (including myself until recently) is that the Andrews and Langley TRACON’s are all under the Washington ARTCC control.

Huntress – North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) call sign
Giant Killer - Fleet Air Control and Surveillance Facility Virginia Capes (FACSFAC VACAPES) call sign
NEADS - North East Air Defense Sector of NORAD
Boston – Boston ARTCC (FAA)
New York – New York ARTCC (FAA)
Washington – Washington ARTCC (FAA)
TRACON – Refers to a specific airport approach ATC (FAA)

AIR DEFENSE was on top of it...SOMEONE had the power to interfear


Now WHO could do that?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Who's to say all the really needed was the "5%"? That everything else had already been set up by other means, or by other people in other places (NORAD, anyone doing "dirty business" at the Port Authority, etc.)? No one so far as I have seen.


From what Guliani says, the main benefit was that instead of having to pick a spot as a command center and shove everyone out of the way, they already had on hand a prepicked spot to place a command center where everyone was already shoved out of the way. Everything else they brought in (biochemical gear, decontamination equipment, triage procedures, or whatever) was moot becuase it wasn't what they needed. Looking at the map of Manhattan, it wasn't even a particilarly strategic spot since pier 92 is about six miles away from where the WTC complex is.

FEMA happened to be in town on 9/11. All right, fine. I can't see how anything you've posted really answers the overwhelming question, "So what?" It would be one thing if you had MORE info which showed FEMA's foreknowledge of the attack than just "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo like this, but from your own admission that's ALL you have. Or do I not understand you correctly?


Because they are a federal agency that would have had authority in an emergency situation, ie 9/11. And they did. It would only take a few federal guys at most to have enough knowledge to steer things in the right direction, and if this was the case, this is exactly the kind of place you would want to look for that kind of "oversight."


All right then, here is the list of your "federal guys" in FEMA, the actual leadership who coordinates things and gets things done

FEMA leadership

Which one of them is the secret mole planted to help coordinate support for the secret conspiracy? If anyone, it would have been Mike Moriarty, the coordinator for Region II (New York State), becuase everything concernign region II has to wind up on his desk. Explain to me how Moriarty is connected to the conspiracy, please.

It's oen thing to imagine shadowy evil bogeymen working behind the scenes, but it's another thing to bring it into the real world and actually accuse real, live people.



The bio-terror drill cover wouldn't be something they would just tell us, they would tell their whole staffs, etc.


Not true. FEMA invites anyone and everyone to come by and watch what they're doing. They do it to raise public awareness of disaster recovery, and all that. Don't take my word for it, look at their website and you'll see it for yourself.


It's because of this kind of thinking, that we already know who it was before we even go into an investigation, that 'we're just going to write about "who did it,"' is exactly why I never read it.


How is that any different from what YOU'RE doing, then? You clearly have a preconcieved belief that some secret conspiracy took place, and you're intentionally evading all information that refutes that belief. At least when the commission report makes a claim, they have a whole bibliography in the back that says where they got the information from.

My philosophy is that the truth never has to run and hide from falsehood. It's falsehood that has to run and hide from the truth. It's the entire reason why I freely review pro-conspiracy material I.E. Loose Change, Fahrenheit 9/11, etc.


You ask for information I could never supply and then say you're just going to have faith that it was a coincidence. You're not just ignorant of any facts to be had, you're too apathetic to even ask for them. Just because you have so much trust and faith in government agencies like FEMA doesn't mean everyone else does.


I ALSO asked for information that didn't have to depend entirely upon innuendo and/or secret agents planted throughout all walks of life, too. This is becuase the former is just saying things noone wants to actually come out and say openly becuase there isn't even an microbe of proof, and the latter is circular logic which can never be proved. I hadn't swapped even three posts with you before you had to start relying on both of these to justify your conspiracy scenarios.

This is however besides the point. Go back and reread my posts here, and you will see the original question I asked is just WHAT in the 9/11 commission report is false? So far, all you've done is discuss what the report DIDN'T contain, and even then, it's entirely your own interpretation that it's kinda-sorta suspicious. How about showing me how what it DID contain is false?



And yes, "coincidence" is a word because it is an idea. "Creationism" and "Darwinism" are also two words that represent mutually exclusive ideas. So the existence of a word doesn't prove the objectivity of whatever idea it refers to. I still don't believe in coincidences.


Since you don't believe in coincidences, I would then like to know what your opinion is of the OTHER coincidence that FEMA just happened to be next door in Washington, D. C. at the time of the Pentagon attack. D.C. is closer to the Pentagon (3 miles) than pier 92 was to the WTC complex (6 miles), after all. Did the gov't stage widespread flooding from rainstorms as the cover story to be in that area during 9/11, too?

It seems to me that rather than there being any actual coincidences, you're embellishing things to make them out to be more of a coincidence than they really are. The only reason the conspiracy proponents aren't embellishing FEMA being in D.C. becuase there isn't a single thing they could say that wouldn't come out sounding stupid. You know that and so do I.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

"For the obvious reason that the commission was simply unable to interview the world"...lol...pathetic...obviously....That is the kind of excuse YOU would tell a 4 year old because YOU can't be bothered

They are the FIRST people they should have talked to...and they did, but the ONLY testimonies they recognize were from the TEN out of 503, that SUPPORT the 'official' story...all the rest were ignored


Ahem. I *asked* just what these first responders would have said that would contradict what the people who were interviewed said. Nowhere in the commission report nor did any of the people interviewed contradict there were explosions. Witnesses heard explosions. The people in the towers heard explosions. Television crews heard explosions. We even heard explosions during the coverage on TV. So, yes, there were explosions. The claim that the report contradicts there were explosions is coming entirely from you.


The debate...or I should say, what *you* are debating...is whether these explosions were actually explosives rather than any of the flammable objects in the building (electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, or whatever) that would naturally go BOOM when the fires reached them. Your debate is also whether these were actually explosions rather than just really loud BANGS from unseen wreckage falling inside. So in short, as supposed proof that the commission report is lying to us, you're bringing up material it didn't talk about, of things that noone is refuting, caused by what your yourself interpret it to have been caused by, while intentionally ignoring everythign else that may have caused it. Does that about sum it up?

Let me ask YOU something, now- according to the report, NYC police helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact area reported the support girders were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were about to collapse, and 1/2 hour later, it did. I will give you the exact page number upon request. What do your first responders say that contradicts that?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
From what Guliani says, the main benefit was that instead of having to pick a spot as a command center and shove everyone out of the way, they already had on hand a prepicked spot to place a command center where everyone was already shoved out of the way.


Alright. So what about that are you trying to drive home to me exactly?


Everything else they brought in (biochemical gear, decontamination equipment, triage procedures, or whatever) was moot becuase it wasn't what they needed.


Which is moot, you are right, because they didn't really need it.


Looking at the map of Manhattan, it wasn't even a particilarly strategic spot since pier 92 is about six miles away from where the WTC complex is.


They also had the command post set up in WTC7, in its bunker, which was designed specifically for OEM use, even though they didn't use it for very long that day.


FEMA happened to be in town on 9/11. All right, fine. I can't see how anything you've posted really answers the overwhelming question, "So what?" It would be one thing if you had MORE info which showed FEMA's foreknowledge of the attack than just "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" innuendo like this, but from your own admission that's ALL you have. Or do I not understand you correctly?


You don't understand correctly, because you are talking to a civilian. So you are obviously confused when you demand some kind of documented evidence from me that yes, FEMA was in Manhattan on September 10th because they were getting a jump on commandeering what was going to happen the next morning. Because I have never in my life had access to such information before other people have not.

What you SHOULD think is, "Wow, FEMA was in Manhattan, even in WTC7, on September 10th. What a coincidence." Then, "Wow, there were a bunch of NORAD/FAA wargames going on in the air that confused responders as to whether or not there was an actual hijacking scenario going on. What a coincidence." And then, "Wow, the NRO HQ (National Reconnaissance, an intelligence facility with satellites and the like) in Virginia (right outside of Washington, like the Pentagon) were performing a drill/exercise that day that simulated a hijacked plane being flown into their building that very same morning, after which they just sent their employees home. What a coincidence!" Then you learn that one of George Bush's cousins had his WTC office moved just a day or two before the attacks, preventing him from dying during the impacts. And "Lucky" Larry Silverstein might have died in his office too, if he didn't have a doctor's or dentist's appointment that morning. And WTC7's fire alarm system had been disabled that morning too.

So you begin to read things like this for so many months and years before, an intelligent person would finally say, "Gee, if these things WEREN'T coincidences, they would suddenly make a HELL of a lot more sense than just a bunch of random crap that just HAPPENED to turn out this way." But since you have not been given a real investigation, you can never go anywhere with that. How would that make you feel?


Which one of them is the secret mole planted to help coordinate support for the secret conspiracy?


Why don't you tell me? You seem like you must know something about these guys that I don't.


If anyone, it would have been Mike Moriarty, the coordinator for Region II (New York State), becuase everything concernign region II has to wind up on his desk.


What a logical conclusion. (sarcasm)


Explain to me how Moriarty is connected to the conspiracy, please.


Explain to me how easy it is to get so wrapped up in these discussions, you forget what being reasonable is, and start asking for things I would never be able to tell you even IF 9/11 was an inside job (which it was).


It's oen thing to imagine shadowy evil bogeymen working behind the scenes, but it's another thing to bring it into the real world and actually accuse real, live people.


You're right, because there needs to be a police investigation first.




The bio-terror drill cover wouldn't be something they would just tell us, they would tell their whole staffs, etc.


Not true. FEMA invites anyone and everyone to come by and watch what they're doing.


First of all, FEMA has been caught lying about a number of things in the past. Just look up their rehearsals for staged press conferences during Katrina that were accidentally aired, where all the questions were planned in advance and allowed FEMA to speak positively of what was actually happening. Or the REX-84 scandal, also directly involving FEMA, that came to light during the Iran-Contra hearings.

Ok, you have all of those things, then you want to tell me that if FEMA officials were involved in carrying out 9/11, they would have come out and told everybody about it. I can't tell whether you have just forgotten what we are talking about or if you really ARE that naive. Don't get me wrong, they do a lot of this stuff in plain sight, but no, they don't actually come out and explain to you in detail all the crimes they are breaking. Sorry.


How is that any different from what YOU'RE doing, then? You clearly have a preconcieved belief that some secret conspiracy took place, and you're intentionally evading all information that refutes that belief.


You have done nothing and CAN do nothing to refute a series of factual occurrences that you can only explain as "coincidences."


At least when the commission report makes a claim, they have a whole bibliography in the back that says where they got the information from.


The Popular Mechanics had a length bibliography, too, but only 2 of the sources were relevant to anything they said about the WTC, for example, and one of those sources was the NIST director. Everything else was irrelevant, but it was certainly an impressing-looking list. What I'm saying is that it's not hard to cite off a bunch of people for trivial information and still get most of what you are saying wrong, especially when there is an effort to do as much.


the original question I asked is just WHAT in the 9/11 commission report is false?


That's something I wouldn't know much about, but I'm sure if you ask around long enough or look in the right places you'll find something. I may even come back and post something later today, I'm just about to head out the door now. But a good line to follow would be the accusations of corruption towards the Kean Commission, what those people were being accused of, etc. , which would probably be the first thing I would search for if I were actually looking.


Did the gov't stage widespread flooding from rainstorms as the cover story to be in that area during 9/11, too?


Maybe you should petition someone in Congress?



It seems to me that rather than there being any actual coincidences


Now you are denying that these "coincidences" ever happened? FEMA setting up in NY a day before, NORAD/FAA tying up radar and flight resources, etc., aren't coincidences, or never happened?


you're embellishing things to make them out to be more of a coincidence than they really are.


I really don't think so. These "coincidences" are only one small face of the subject we are dealing with, and you know that. You are right that it's just a difference in the way we are seeing this information, though. If you are a truly brave soul maybe you'll try both perspectives on some day rather than just attacking the one from the other side?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join