posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by vipertech0596
First: If there was no actual "Stand Down Order", but rather only an order to 'not act' (Which yes, using semantics, are two different things) and
if that is the order which caused a lack of action from the military on 9/11, and others (Truthers Movement) came to start calling it a stand-down
order, and the OP decided to continue refering to it as such (possibly knowing it was being mislabeled) then he/she was creating a situation based on
errors where no proof can work under his rules of "Which Stand Down Order Did Cheney Give?". It seems, the answer is "He didn't give one, but
Rumsfeld did an order with similar effect".
*If the OP truly wanted a real conversation he wouldn't have locked himself into a set of rules before engaging other parties on the topic.
Conversations must be allowed to grow as new items are presented; that order being presented is a new item, and it fits the bill of the conspiracy
that the OP is trying to dismantle. Refusing to hear the evidence being presented, makes one fail at the debate. Both sides of the argument are doing
it by choosing what evidence they want to listen to and what evidence they want to ignore.*
Second : And? I never said that directive came from Cheney, so thank you for pointing out the un-necessary facts regarding what i didn't say.
There's plenty of things i didn't say, and pointing them out doesn't add value to your stance.
Third: You really need to follow your own advice.