911myths on Mineta, Cheney and Clarke

[TJM]

I never said you succeeded.

One of the best things about ridicule is it doesn't require your consent.

 

[Oystein]

So I'm clear:

Someone slips a staged photo into a collection of 300 pictures shot on 9-11-2001, a collection that was kept from public view for 13 years, to falsify where the Vice President was at a specific time. They do this by using a look-alike of a White House adviser, a well-known media personality.

First problem: As a photographer myself, if I need to fix a problem that big I'm going to use Photoshop. The images are perfect because they're all large and high-resolution.

Second problem: If I'm dumb enough to think using a double would work I would take a page from my Hollywood friends and shoot the double in such a way that nobody gets a good look.

Third problem: Why would you need a photo, staged or otherwise, at all? It's been 13 years, who cares? The first rule of crime is "No Pictures". Staging a photo adds at least two more people who are in on the conspiracy. Why not insist that no photos be taken on that morning instead? The more physical evidence criminals leave behind the harder it is to get away with the crime.

Fourth problem: Nobody has disputed where the Vice President was and when he was there on 9-11. Matalin's office was on the next floor above Cheney's, and since she was his aid she would have been with him. Nobody disputes this eiter.

You are right on every point, but playing Devil's Advocate, I have two remarks on two of your problems:

Third: A few dozends of the photos by the White House photographer David Bohrer (with the Vice President), Eric Draper (with the President) and others have been published previously, so it is already known in the public domain that photos do exist - and then there was a FOIA that "they" had to respond to...

Fourth: D'uh! Remember where we are here? The 9/11 Truth subforum! Obviously truthers have for many years, starting with DRG in 2006 I think, doubted what Cheney did when and where on 9/11. As a matter of fact, the photographer himself, David Bohrer, has been quoted by abc news in a September 2002 article as implying that Cheney was moved to the PEOC perhaps 30 minutes earlier than he actually was:

"Just after 9 a.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney was in his West Wing office when two or three agents came in and told him "Sir, you have to come with us," according to David Bohrer, a White House photographer who was there."​

"Just after 9 a.m." vs. just after 9:36 - see where I'm going?
The Bohrer photos we are discussing here prove the abc/Bohrer-story wrong.

You can hear her talk about that morning here:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?300727-1/mary-matalin-september-11-2001

The beauty of watching this video is that she's wearing bracelets, and they slip up and down her forearm when she talks with her hands.

Thanks for digging this up!
I like how clear she is, 10 years after, about the pitfalls of recollection. Says "my heavily revisionist memory" at one point, and at another admits that she probably is mixing genuine recollection with what she as read subsequently.

She tells rather vividly how she initially left the White House premises, hurriedly like everyone else, after Cheney was evacuated to the PEOC, then got a call on the cell phone from a military aide in the PEOC telling her to also come to the bunker. Then she had trouble convincing the armed guards that she should enter, she had to call the PEOC back and have them convince the guard. And that it isn't exactly easy to navigate to the PEOC.
The first photo of Matalin in the PEOC is V1543-31, shot probably 10:28 or shortly thereafter (watching collapse of WTC1 on TV). It appears from the other photos that she wasn't there at 10:18 or shortly thereafter; she may indeed have entered the PEOC only between 10:20 and 10:25. Her remarks on the "shoot-down" order topic a relatively vague, which in my view is consistent with her arriving late into that debate.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, I realize the burden of proof is on me, but you have all been given opportunities to prove I'm wrong.

Study the above sentence with your objectivity switched on, and consider how it makes you appear.

Dave

 

[pgimeno]

Wrong, and a classic truther heads-I-win-tails-you-lose tactic; you claim that no response means you win the argument by default, and any response that doesn't convince you proves that the other side secretly agrees with you. Since no response will convince you, those are the only options. But it's a fallacy; the real reason you're getting so much attention is that there's nothing much else to talk about in this forum.

He lost me with the NSA crap. It showed me there's no point in arguing further.

 

[FalseFlag]

Study the above sentence with your objectivity switched on, and consider how it makes you appear.

Dave

I carefully choose my words. I stand by what I said.

Let me give you an example to clarify my meaning. Let's say my claim was not about staged pictures, body doubles, or hair and facial features that don't match. Let's say my claim was that the NIST investigation into the collapse of WTC7 was incomplete and their conclusions were wrong. After making that claim I then gave at least 20 well-reasoned arguments in support of it. Each one of my arguments cited multiple, legitimate, credible references. No, I'm NOT making that claim. I am just giving an example.

What would happen if I did that? I can tell you what would happen, because there are thousands of posts on this forum to prove it. You, and everyone else who believes the official story, would go into attack mode and use everything you had in your arsenal of misinformation and BS to try to disprove each of my claims.

In this case, not one person has done anything to discredit my claim using valid arguments. The only attempts to discredit my claim involve amateurish logical fallacies.

So, I stand by my original statement. I have the burden of proof. I have submitted that proof. You refuse to accept it. Fine. You also have the opportunity to prove I'm wrong. No, you don't have to prove I'm wrong, but the opportunity exists. Additionally, if you had anything at all that would conclusively prove I'm wrong, besides logical fallacies that have no merit, you wouldn't hesitate to use it.

 

[FalseFlag]

He lost me with the NSA crap. It showed me there's no point in arguing further.

You have over 2000 posts on this forum that attempt to support the official story, right? If you're not getting paid by the NSA, then the alternatives are just embarrassing to you. Personally, I would rather pretend I was with the NSA if I was going to spend so much time supporting a laughable story.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In this case, not one person has done anything to discredit my claim using valid arguments. The only attempts to discredit my claim involve amateurish logical fallacies.

That's because there is no substance to your claim worthy of discrediting. You are simply offering an argument from incredulity, and it is a perfectly valid argument to respond to that by simply rejecting it out of hand. Any further substance would require, quite literally, an understanding of the position of every hair on Mary Matalin's head on a specific day fourteen years ago. Besides, several people have pointed out where the lock of hair required can be seen; your response is simply to repeat the assertion that it doesn't exist.

And I also stand by my earlier words: you are clearly not prepared to be convinced by any argument. The signs are too clear to miss - "the Official Story," characterisation of everything on offer from those who disagree with you as "misinformation and BS," accusations that people who disagree with you are part of the conspiracy, and the hilarious attempt to appeal to a hypothetical set of "at least 20 well-reasoned arguments" despite having nothing of the sort to offer. You are clearly only interested in validating your beliefs, and are completely closed to new information. Therefore, there is no more point to discussion here.

Good luck with the hairdressing forum. I hope you can at least listen to them.

[secret NSA stealth mode]Oystein, have you got that fake hairdressing forum set up yet? I don't think we can stall him much longer here, he's about to blow the lid off this whole thing.[/secret NSA stealth mode]

Dave

 

[DGM]

Thanks for the constructive post. I appreciate it.

Your girlfriend says that Mary's hair is tucked behind her ear in both pictures? Which pictures? You mean the one in Cheney's office and then another in the PEOC?

I quoted the pictures in the post you responded to.

If so, please use Paint, or a similar program, to open the picture of Mary in Cheney's office and draw a line showing what your girlfriend sees. Please show me how her hair is behind her ear. Please make sure to show how the hair in the top, outermost layer goes from the front of her forehead to behind her ears. Thanks.

It's not worth my effort. Every single picture I've seen of her on that day has a layer (or more) of hair tucked behind her ear. Her hair length never changes, just how it's arranged.

 

[FalseFlag]

That's because there is no substance to your claim worthy of discrediting.

This is nothing more than an opinion

You are simply offering an argument from incredulity

Opinion.

and it is a perfectly valid argument to respond to that by simply rejecting it out of hand.

Then reject my claim and move on.

Any further substance would require, quite literally, an understanding of the position of every hair on Mary Matalin's head on a specific day fourteen years ago. Besides, several people have pointed out where the lock of hair required can be seen; your response is simply to repeat the assertion that it doesn't exist.

You are over complicating my argument in an effort to discredit it. You also claim that several people "pointed out a lock of hair required can be seen."
This statement conclusively proves you have failed to read the posts in this thread. Another user posted a picture and clearly drew an arrow pointing to a strand of hair, thus confirming what I saw. He later backtracked and said he didn't agree with me, even though his post says otherwise.

Another user said he asked his girlfriend to look at two pictures. His girlfriend clearly sees that Mary's hair is tucked behind her ear. The question is, what two pictures is he referring to?

In either case, a poster other than myself has confirmed what I see. They won't agree with my conclusion, but they do confirm what I see.

Your claim that my "response is simply to repeat the assertion that it doesn't exist" is not supported by anything in this thread.

And I also stand by my earlier words: you are clearly not prepared to be convinced by any argument. The signs are too clear to miss - "the Official Story," characterisation of everything on offer from those who disagree with you as "misinformation and BS," accusations that people who disagree with you are part of the conspiracy, and the hilarious attempt to appeal to a hypothetical set of "at least 20 well-reasoned arguments" despite having nothing of the sort to offer. You are clearly only interested in validating your beliefs, and are completely closed to new information. Therefore, there is no more point to discussion here.

Um, no. The above quote is nothing more than BS. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's word salad and nothing more. It is you who lacks the ability to argue and be convinced by any argument. I submit that nonsense above as proof. You should be embarrassed to have posted that drivel. It might pass as "argument" to some of the brain-dead posters on here, but I see right through it. Seriously, I expected more from you. There is nothing coherent in that paragraph. It's indecipherable! Why are you even wasting your time if you can't form a coherent argument?

Good luck with the hairdressing forum. I hope you can at least listen to them

Thanks. I will.

 

[FalseFlag]

I quoted the pictures in the post you responded to.

Where? What two pictures did she comment on?

 

[DGM]

Where? What two pictures did she comment on?

These two. It doesn't matter though, she has hair tucked in them all.

OK. Here is the picture with her hair down to eye level. Where are the three horizontal layers?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7079256023734cd2d1.png[/qimg]

Here she is with her head tilted down. The front of her hair is clearly tucked behind her ear in order to keep it out of her eyes. How is it possible for the hair in the Cheney office pic to be long enough to go behind her ears? Also, where are the three horizontal layers?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/70792560237c57b52e.jpg[/qimg]

 

[FalseFlag]

I stand by my NSA claim. It defies all probability and possibility that anyone would spend so much time spreading so much misinformation on their own. I find it hard to believe that so many people could be this delusional. Sure, there might be some clueless civilians who come here and buy into this nonsense because they lack the ability to think critically, but they are the minority.

I defend freedom of speech, but the nonsense that goes on here is borderline criminal.

You reject science and common sense. You rely instead on junk science, articles that lack credibility, misinformation, and logical fallacies. This is nothing more than a circle-jerk for the mentally challenged, and a place for NSA gatekeepers to spread their BS.

I have had enough. Peace out.

 

[TJM]

Didn't quite stick the flounce. 5/10.

 

[FalseFlag]

These two. It doesn't matter though, she has hair tucked in them all.

OMG.
This is laughable.
There is no argument that those pictures are of Mary Matalin. It's obvious.
How can you spend so much time saying I'm wrong if you don't even take the time to understand my claim?

The issue is that the Mary in Cheney's office is different than the Mary in the PEOC. You know that's my argument! That's the hair you should have shown!

I'm done. LOL. This is hilarious.

Cya.

If you really are with the NSA, stay the **** out of my computer.

Peace.

 

[DGM]

I stand by my NSA claim. It defies all probability and possibility that anyone would spend so much time spreading so much misinformation on their own. I find it hard to believe that so many people could be this delusional. Sure, there might be some clueless civilians who come here and buy into this nonsense because they lack the ability to think critically, but they are the minority.

I defend freedom of speech, but the nonsense that goes on here is borderline criminal.

You reject science and common sense. You rely instead on junk science, articles that lack credibility, misinformation, and logical fallacies. This is nothing more than a circle-jerk for the mentally challenged, and a place for NSA gatekeepers to spread their BS.

I have had enough. Peace out.

So, does this mean you can't show she has her hair tucked behind her ear in every photo?

BTW: I know what picture you claim is fake:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/385/19295977883_64a97dd459_b.jpg

 

[DGM]

If you really are with the NSA, stay the **** out of my computer.

A bit paranoid are you? Besides, if we were, do you really think we'd care what you want?

 

[beachnut]

I stand by my NSA claim.

That is expected, after standing by an opinion shown wrong by people who would love to stick it to Cheney. Maybe you should have tried comedy central to do a parody on Dick, even though your material is bogus.

It defies all probability and possibility that anyone would spend so much time spreading so much misinformation on their own.

Learn to type faster, it take a few seconds to see your photos are of the same woman. I have been typing fast for over 45 years - take a typing class. If you have to watch TV shows etc. they are on demand now, and you can waste time posting and watching at the same time... multi-task... You are the one spreading misinformation.

I find it hard to believe that so many people could be this delusional.

There are not so many; the people who spread the misinformation like you do, are a fringe few. Spreading lies on 911 about false flag, and trying to say there are two Marys, is only done by a tiny minority out of paranoia, or the need for fantasy. You are projecting again.

Sure, there might be some clueless civilians who come here and buy into this nonsense because they lack the ability to think critically, but they are the minority.

Projection.

I defend freedom of speech, but the nonsense that goes on here is borderline criminal.

Where is the proof?
Using the Fetzer method of proof is not logical.
Fetzer Proof: what he is say is proof, is proof. No evidence, just what he says.

You reject science and common sense.

Projection again.

You rely instead on junk science, articles that lack credibility, misinformation, and logical fallacies.

Projection with extra orders of magnitude projection.

This is nothing more than a circle-jerk for the mentally challenged, and a place for NSA gatekeepers to spread their BS.

Super duper projection.

I have had enough. Peace out.

When it only take seconds to debunk your two marys, with a quick glance; the only thing you have left is to declare victory, project on us all those super duper 911 truth traits, and run away.

When will you team with a newspaper and earn the Pulitzer since you have proved your opinion?

Where did I put my NSA check... who is paying 911 truth to be so darn silly and spread dumbed down lies... ANTINSA? who -



Who took more than a few seconds to see mary was mary? anyone

...
If you really are with the NSA, stay the **** out of my computer.

Peace.

You left, why are you back? Really, the NSA stuff is BS, you can't be that paranoid. Wait, you keep trying to make up fake claims to get Cheney... You would have no problems getting help to pin something on Cheney, but to make up stuff this silly is not critical thinking, it is blind political bias BS.

Why are you online; are you paid by 911 truth? 14 years and nothing based on evidence from 911 truth.

 

[DGM]

If you have to watch TV shows etc. they are on demand now, and you can waste time posting and watching at the same time... multi-task... You are the one spreading misinformation.

Better still, post at work...........you get paid.

(I'm the boss, I don't mind)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Um, no. The above quote is nothing more than BS. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's word salad and nothing more. It is you who lacks the ability to argue and be convinced by any argument. I submit that nonsense above as proof.

Advancing your own lack of reading comprehension as evidence in favour of your claims is, sadly, just another one of the identikit drive-by truther techniques we see round here.

OK, so you've presented an argument from incredulity, everyone here has rejected it, and you've responded by repeating it and making some paranoid, and utterly stereotypical, accusations. Come up with something better, leave, or stay and be laughed at, are your options. You choose.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

I commend all of you on your coordinated attacks.

Please cut to the chase:

1. Are you claiming that we are all attacking you?
2. Are you claiming in particular that I am attacking you?
3. Are you claiming that we all are coordinating attacks on you?
4. In particular, are you claiming that I am coordinating my "attacks" on you with any other member(s) here?
5. That would imply that I am somehow communicating with them outside of this thread - is that your claim?

Please clarify which of the above you do and do not claim.
Please provide evidence for the claims you make!
Please retract the claims for wich you have no evidence, and apologize for the personal attack!

The problem is that attacking me personally,

I don't think I have attacked you personally, but I feel attacked by you.

The NSA is wasting their money on you.

Please cut to the chase:

• Are you claiming we are paid by the NSA, or other covert agencies, for posting here?
• Are you in particulart claiming that I am paid by the NSA, or other covert agencies, for posting here?

Then please provide evidence for the allegation, or else retract and apologize for the personal attack!

I do not believe I have earned your personal attacks, and neither have DGM, pgimeno and Dave Rogers, who took your postings serious and offered serious rebuttals.