Originally posted by wcitizen
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Absolutely I will complain if you or anyone else makes assumptions about what I believe, and then states it is fact. There's another alternative -
if you don't know what my opinion is and you are interested to know, you could ask. Assuming you know what I believe, and then stating that
assumption as fact is not acceptable or factual or honest.
You mean ask you like I did in the OP?
"I would like to throw this question out to the rest of you so that I can know whether the claim is generally subscribed to among the majority of
conspiracy people or whether it's the lone theory of a fringe zealot who listens to Alex Jones too much:
Do YOU think Ted Olson is lying to cover up the murder of his wife Barbara? "
I was right the first time- you really are arguing for the sake of arguing, at this point.
Well Dave, I can't speak for all truthers. As you know, that would be extremely foolish. But clearly, I've already stated that a proper, criminal
investigation should be carried out. No, Dave, not 'another investigation' - the first, proper, criminal investigation into 9/11 needs to be carried
All right then, may I ask what you consider to be a PROPER criminal investigation? Dr. Judy Woods wants a forensics examination into energy weapons
destroying the towers. Do you concur? As you say, you can't speak for all truthers but you're going to have to have some form of standardized
investigation methodology, otherwise you're be wasting time placating the one or two UFO kooks who think the towers were destroyed by shapeshifting
alien reptiles. Yes, they're out there.
My train of thought is that if a full, proper, criminal investigation had been carried out, this kind of initiative would not be necessary.
...but as the title of this thread states, how can you do any proper criminal investigation when you're bickering over what is credible evidence and
what isn't? For instance, the 9/11 Commission report states that German intelligence had been watchign the Hamburg cell and they saw Mohammed Atta
and his bunch meeting up with known Al Qaida operatives. We know this is the case becuase German intelligence contributed to the creation of the
report. Is German intelligence credible or not?
The document has been discredited by some of those who were involved in the process. It does not include all the available facts. In any case it was
not a proper, impartial, criminal investigation. That is what is needed.
Give me an example of the document "being discredited by some who were involved in the process". I am going by Lee Hamilton's statement that the
9/11 commission report is still more accurate than any of the alternative scenarios, and he's the one who made the "we were set up to fail"
statement to begin with.
No - this is an attempt by you to get into a circular argument in order to confuse the issue. I have stated very clearly that for me the issue is
that the government has yet to prove its case, and must do so. It needs to prove its case within the context of a proper, impartial, criminal
investigation, the integrity of which is totally reliable.
Which gets back to the previous question- just what constitutes an "impartial" investigation? Anyone who has expertise on crash site forensics will
almost certainly be with the FAA, people testifying on NORAD will be in the military, anyone testifying on Al Qaida will be with some intelligence
agency, anyone describing WTC security procedures will be with the NYPA, etc etc etc, all of which you've insisted are part of this imagined coverup
of yours. Ted Olson can't even testify on the last telephone conversation he had with his wife without being called a liar, and you yourself
admitted you have no proof of that. Who's left to comprise an impartial investigation and who has the expertise to even contribute to any
Such disagreement is irrelevant at this stage. In a proper, official, criminal investigation, in the case where, for example, the
government's story was evidenced to be inaccurate, all this kind of evidence would be scrutinised and assessed by relevant experts.
The only "relevent experts" I've seen your side produce are people pretending to have expertise they don't really have. You have one economist
pretending to be a materials engineer, you have one religious professor pretending to be a physicist, you have a physicist pretending to be an
explosives expert, you have one architect who never built anything larger than a high school stadium pretending that he's built mega-skyscrapers, and
you have one college kid making internet videos in his dorm room pretending to be an investigative journalist. Oh yeah, there's the internet radio
DJ making a blizzard of accusations without a microbe of proof to back any of it up..
The only one who really IS an established expert on their testimony is...yes, you guessed it, Dr. Judy "lasers from outer space" Wood. She really
is a structural engineer and physics professor.
Well, that's more 'your rub' than 'the rub' because that's an assumption you are making. I guess the general response to a proper,
criminal investigation would very much depend on the thoroughness and the integrity of the investigation and the conclusions of such an investigation.
Any disinfo which may have been infiltrated into the truth movement, for example, would be identified as such, through proper investigation. The
rest of your statement is purely your speculation.
??? Are you genuinely accusing Dr Judy Wood of being a disinformation agent?
I don't have enough reliable, specific evidence to have an opinion on that. I do believe there are anomalies about this part of the story,
but that doesn't mean I am saying he is lying.
All right then, how about all the OTHER people who received phone calls from the planes? Don't you think the parents of flight attendant Renee May
would be able to recognize whether the voice of their own daughter was actually hers?
Do you concur at least that if even ONE phone call from flight 77 was legitimate, it necessarily means all the calls could be legitimate? If so, then
this whole "Ted Olson lied" accusation is nothing but repulsive slander.