Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

stateofgrace said:
Russell.

I want to make this crystal clear for you. I am an old boy, I'm 46. Before the Iraq war I matched, yes I actually got off my aging backside and matched against it. I voiced my objection on the day the bombs started falling on Bagdad.

I have NEVER supported the war in Iraq; I have NEVER defended the US Government on this issue. I have NEVER applauded and clapped as the death toll mounts. The continuing bloodshed out in Iraq and other parts of the world for that matter are absolutely appalling. Right now Iraq is lunging toward civil war. People, real people are dying, I OBJECT.

But I will object on reality, not on some make believe, some whispers of a conspiracy involving US citizens being involved in Mass murder of their fellow countrymen, to make it all happen.

Please do not use the blood letting and blood shed that is going right now as some kind of fall back. I KNOW the US and my own Government has got it wrong, I know they are making a mess out there. This does not mean 911 were engineering to start it all.

Please, for goodness sake stop trying to get everybody on a guilt trip by implying everybody is blissfully unaware of the worlds problems and injustices. This did not all start on 911, this has been there for a long time.

I hope you can see this Russell because this is one of the most annoying tactics used by cters. Please don't dothis.
Click to expand...

stateofgrace,

I am 45 and feel the same way you do. The first job I had on a flightline was marshaling aircraft for the Iran hostage rescue.

I do not use guilt. I do not feel anybody here is consciously supporting the Middle East atrocities.

I too tire of the strategies used against Cters. So I feel skeptics should ask themselves real questions.

How else would they have justified the pre-desired invasion to the American people?

It has to be considered. They knew the transformation would be long without a new Pearl Harbor.

I did not sign my name to that document but members of our administration did.

Skeptics wants to accuse CT's of being kooks then they should address all of the implications of 9/11 being used as a pretext for war.

Russell
 
I was just a kid in 1983, but as I recall Iraq was at war with Iran at that time. Our choices were to support Khomeini or Saddam. Given that we were just a couple years removed from the whole hostages thing, I can see how we might lean towards Saddam at that time. "At that time" being the key words. Sure, it's easy to sit back 20+ years later and say we sold arms to Saddam, but given the political realities of 1983 supporting Saddam was, if not defensible, at least understandable.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Its not a hoax. Im gonna emai fox news myself about it.
Click to expand...


What's the basis for your claim? Did you actually watch the original footage, five years ago? I would email them; but I don't want them laughing hysterically at my expense.
 
Russell Pickering said:
How else would they have justified the pre-desired invasion to the American people?

It has to be considered. They knew the transformation would be long without a new Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

ermmmmm well if you mean Iraq, I think they would have committed a simple atrocity, such as car bombings or even attacks on US bases in the mid-east and then planted enough evidence to make sure there was no doubt that Iraq was responsible.

But 9/11? Puhlease!

Why did the towers HAVE to come down?

You honestly believe someone somewhere made a decision that those towers had to be demolished before there would be support for a mid-east war? And then decided to demolish them in the most complicated way possible?
 
Dear Sir/Madam,

The link below is a video purported to be from Fox news coverage of 9/11. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7807592959569136609&q=fake+911+eyewitness
Its in the film "911 mysteries" and claims it is of a witness that was interviewed on the day of 9/11.
Some people are claiming the video is a fake. Could you possibly confirm if the video is genuine and if indeed you allowed 911 mysteries to use it?
Thankyou in advance for your help.

Kind Regards

Rachel
Click to expand...

I have just sent this email to Viewerservices@foxnews.com.

Lets see what they say
 
Mince said:
You do realize, of course, what this will do to the reputation of 9/11 Mysteries if Fox News says it's fabricated?
Click to expand...

Yes and if 911mysteries fabricated it then I would like them exposed. They wouldn't dare fabricate that and risk their film being exposed and fox news suing them.
 
For the record, I don't think any CTs are kooks, as you say. I just think a lot of them are grossly uninformed and misinformed.
Click to expand...

Na there is a small fringe of absolute kook in there. One even tried to tell me Ghandi was a NWO puppet.
 
Mince said:
You do realize, of course, what this will do to the reputation of 9/11 Mysteries if Fox News says it's fabricated?
Click to expand...


Ohhhh come on! FOX NEWS? Mouthpiece of the republican party?

They could have video footage from inside the planes showing the hijackers steering them into the towers and the CT'ers wouldn't believe it..... and neither would I!!!

FOX NEWS! Hilarious.
 
Russell Pickering said:
How else would they have justified the pre-desired invasion to the American people?

It has to be considered. They knew the transformation would be long without a new Pearl Harbor.

I did not sign my name to that document but members of our administration did.

Skeptics wants to accuse CT's of being kooks then they should address all of the implications of 9/11 being used as a pretext for war.

Russell
Click to expand...

Even if one accepts the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" in the view of the government or neo-cons, why such a complicated and diffused plot such as 9/11?

I've posited before, but it bears repeating.....
All you need is five Iraqis, all wearing I heart Saddam t-shirts, with Iraqi ID in their wallets. Have someone blow up a lightly guarded installation or American shrine/symbol. The Washington Monument or Statue of Liberty would make the most dramatic footage. Then have the five conspirators shot by heroic guards (have a guard or two wounded or killed for dramatic effect). You'd need an inner circle of five or six people, not the hundreds and hundreds that were required for the 9/11 conspiracies currently extant.

If you're the leader of the free world, and have every resource imaginable at your fingertips, why expose yourself to the huge risks of having to involve police departments, NORAD, fire departments, WTC 7 government workers, et al.

After all, if you take the other favorite CT (not even remotely saying you're a believer), the JFK assasination, and assume the government wanted a reason during the 60's to invade Cuba or nuke Russia, all you'd need is the one lone gunman and a few notes in a safe deposit box from Fidel or Raoul Batista, or a map to a drop box at the Russian Consulate.... It'd be very easy to construct a much more believable lie without having to involve hundreds of individuals who could go public.

I think the Bushies are merely opportunists. They had their Saddam filter on, and wanted an excuse to take him down, and they used the opportunity they were presented by a bunch of miscreants on 9/11.
 
Russell Pickering said:
The evidence was destroyed.

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action."
Click to expand...
January 2002? And tell me Russell, when did that edition go to print? Does Manning think that there were explosives involved now? Did he then?

A reading of the editorial in question gives the answer: "No" on all counts.
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise.
Click to expand...
Manning was concerned about the fireproofing, and the truss design of the WTC buildings. He did not think that explosives were used. That was right there in your quote, Russell.
 
WildCat said:
January 2002? And tell me Russell, when did that edition go to print? Does Manning think that there were explosives involved now? Did he then?

A reading of the editorial in question gives the answer: "No" on all counts.

Manning was concerned about the fireproofing, and the truss design of the WTC buildings. He did not think that explosives were used. That was right there in your quote, Russell.
Click to expand...

But whatever Mannings' motive was he still stated the evidence was being destroyed.
 
Usual Suspect said:
Seems Craig Bartmer would feel disrespected by Gravy and those deny 9/11 Truth and not by those who ask for the truth.

Craig Bartmer Interview

Notice he talks about the "fear" people have of coming forward. What would they have to fear??? Losing their careers. They way they support their families. The way they pay their bills. Their health insurance.

"3,000 dead deserve better" ~ Craig Bartmer

3,000 dead deserve better than Gravy spewing the official lie as evidence.
Click to expand...

I have a question for the CT people. Why not focus on things that might be a little less sexy but more effective? Like investigating senior administration culpability in torture and prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I was just a kid in 1983, but as I recall Iraq was at war with Iran at that time. Our choices were to support Khomeini or Saddam. Given that we were just a couple years removed from the whole hostages thing, I can see how we might lean towards Saddam at that time. "At that time" being the key words. Sure, it's easy to sit back 20+ years later and say we sold arms to Saddam, but given the political realities of 1983 supporting Saddam was, if not defensible, at least understandable.
Click to expand...
The US was the source of a tiny percentage of Iraq's arms in that war. The largest suppliers of arms to Iraq, by an overwhelming margin, were the USSR and France. In fact, the US was content to see the Iran-Iraq war persist in a stalemate as a check on both regimes.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Irrelevant, he witnessed evidence being destroyed.
Click to expand...
Hardly irrelevant. He was concerned the investigation wouldn't be thorough. And the editorial was written before NIST was commissioned to study the matter. In fact, the NIST invesyigation was exactly the kind of study he was calling for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom