Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Above conspiring to cover-up?
- Thread starter ZENSMACK89
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cover-ups
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
So, you've progressed from JAQing about how we'd believe such an obviously flawed regime to outright assumption of MIHOP?
This is why I love the JAQ crowd. "Who? Me? Accusing someone? No. I'm just not satisfied with the official version."
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The Al qaeda doesn't exist form of denial. That's nice.
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
I haven't progressed to anything else. The original question was never answered.So, you've progressed from JAQing about how we'd believe such an obviously flawed regime to outright assumption of MIHOP?
This is why I love the JAQ crowd. "Who? Me? Accusing someone? No. I'm just not satisfied with the official version."
Par
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,768
Thank you for illustrating my point for me.
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
Yeah just because Gravy says so right? Got any original thoughts in that head of yours Phantom? And Gravy’s credentials are what?
For instance right from Gravy’s scary list...
"we, to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from truth..." - Thomas H. Kean, Chair
"I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.
We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could." - Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair
Wow those are some shining endorsements of the official version. This is why you believe a bunch of liars?
And why does Gravy need to pad his list by individually naming members of NIST or FEMA? For instance NIST is one government sponsored version that doesn’t cover all events of 9/11 or even the WTC site.
This is critical thinking? Sounds like a short cut to thinking and not even your own shortcut Phantom. Prone to blind faith are you?
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
No not like...
http://www.nswbc.org/Press Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm
The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack.
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050510.htm
Shareholder challenges "Lucky Larry’s" $7.2 billion Twin Tower insurance claim
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/eveningnews/main516886.shtml
(CBS) In part two of her report on the American Red Cross, CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson looks at what investigative auditors found when they visited the charity's local chapters to see what they were doing with the millions in donations pouring in.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641
FAA covering up 9-11 gun,
whistleblower agent says
Claims feds, American Airlines fear lawsuits; Flight 11 victims' families want Hill probe
I thought it was claimed there weren't any?
Based on what?
This was the list I was referring to as "your list of the usual couple dozen professional disagreers." (Though of course it's not a couple dozen, it's thirteen.)
(I might also ask, as you asked regarding Gravy's list, why you need to "pad" this list by listing individual names. But I know the answer.)
This is not an organization or person who questions the findings of the press, the investigative agencies, the service agencies, and the technical experts on 9/11.
This is the opinion of one shareholder. Out of how many shareholders of how many insurance companies involved? How do his qualifications compare with the organizations and individuals on Gravy's list? (Anybody can buy shares, correct?)
This is not an organization or person who questions the findings of the press, the investigative agencies, the service agencies, and the technical experts on 9/11.
This is a claim by one individual that the terrorists used a gun on Flight 11. Maybe so -- it's well known that it was not very difficult to sneak guns aboard airplanes before 9/11. Of minor importance to the historical narrative, but of great importance to those who see it as another opportunity to sue somebody.
I certainly never made any such claim. That's why I mentioned "a couple dozen professional disagreers" (which, after a careful count of the above, turns out to be fifteen people). What I said was that your list is not comparable to the list of organizations and individuals participating in establishing the known history.
If you're asking what I based my conclusion on, I already told you. The evidence.
If you're asking what the Bush administration based their conclusion on, then I don't know and I don't care. Perhaps they based it on the same evidence I based mine on. Perhaps they ignored the evidence and chose the conclusion they thought would give them best political advantage. Perhaps they threw a dart at a dart board. How they reached their conclusion does not and should not affect my conclusion which is based on the evidence. And it shouldn't affect yours either. Here's why.
Because of the failures and wrongdoings of the neocons and the Bush administration (which you OP does an extremely poor job of cataloguing, but never mind that), the last thing you or I should want is to allow them to determine our beliefs. Do you agree with that?
That's why I based my conclusion on the evidence, especially evidence provided by the foreign press, the behavior of self-interested third parties such as the insurance companies, scientific and technical experts, private photographs and video, and on-the-scene first responders.
You, on the other hand, seem to be basing your conclusions on always believing the opposite of everything the Bush administration tells you. Serious question: don't you realize that by doing that, you're allowing what they say to determine your beliefs, just as much as if you automatically agreed with everything they tell you?
Respectfully,
Myriad
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
You're question was if there are agencies like the ones you listed that question the official version. My reply is not like but people from those very agencies questioning or involved in questionable practices involving 9/11.
I try to keep up on all sides weighing in on 9/11 and give them a fair listen. Do you? The inconsistencies and omissions in the official 9/11 account peddled by this administration are just as shady and questionable as anything they have been involved with.
SpaceMonkeyZero
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,284
re: OP. Did truthers get together and decide "Word Salad" is the best way to let your kook flag fly?
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
I believe he did say it. But if even if he didnt his actions show he believes it.
No missing Pentagon money? Oh maybe this accounts for some of it huh...
Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- A small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to a Texas base, U.S. officials said.
The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
No I did that all by myself. Like it?
Rumsfeld's statement -- isn't this the one millionth repeat? do I get a prize? -- was that because the Pentagon's accounting system and computer systems were such messes, it was impossible to account for the spending of a couple of trillion dollars in recent years. Not that there was "missing" money -- kept where? I looked under my desk, no luck.
Right, and that question was in regard to your claim, which was this:
... in reference to my statement that my conclusions are based on evidence from the Federal investigative agencies, local law enforcement investigations, private investigations conducted by the insurance companies, the U.S. press, the international press, exhibits in criminal trials, investigative articles and peer-reviewed papers by scientists and engineers, and first-hand eyewitness accounts including some presented in these forums.
I expressed some doubt about that claim:
You have now addressed that doubt by citing fifteen people, some of whom are former U.S. government employees, and not all of whom appear to be offering any actual evidence.
The doubt remains.
I'd still like a response to my question. Let me generalize it a bit, which will perhaps make it a bit more palatable:
Do you believe that deciding one's position on an issue, based entirely on hostility toward some particular source advocating the contrary position, is sound reasoning?
For instance, if the Pope issues an edict declaring that adultery is wrong, and I personally think the Catholic Church is an anachronistic parasite and the Pope has no more authority to issue moral edicts than Zak Efron, should I therefore conclude that adultery is not wrong? Is that sound reasoning?
Respectfully,
Myriad
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Where did I say UBL? Please try to read my post for comprehension and stick to reality.
ZENSMACK89
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,068
And I provided you with some of those agency’s and people expressing doubt as well as question some of their motives. I answered you.
When I list something like the FAA and the Airlines and their possible motive for going along with the official version or the Red Cross and their questionable contribution collecting am I speaking of just one person?
I have responded. I never claimed you would like it.
Mine isn't based on hostility it's based on the record. The record you would have to deny in giving the official version the suspension of disbelief it needs to fly.
Again my position isn't based on just polarizing myself all things Bush Administration. That being said when the official version raises many red flags and holes never filled in their overall record comes into play to weigh the validity of the ones putting forth such a questionable story.
Now for the other side. Is your faith in the official version really based on facts and critical thinking or just your investment in polarizing yourself from all things truther?
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Yes, NORAD got their time line totally screwy and were way out, the tapes proved that, and guess what, the truth the Commission uncovered reflected NORAD in a far better light than what NORAD actually told them. You are trying to use the fact that NORADs mistakes in their testimony were found out and corrected for the report as a case against the report the found the mistakes and fixed them? Wow, that takes a special kind of stupid to do that does.
And yet you struggle to actually point to anything they did get wrong, let alone prove that the entire things was a sham. I can point to several things they got wrong (They claimed a 10 second collapse and they use the Floor Pancake initiation model FEMA determined rather than the exterior column collapse that NIST later determined in a more indepth study) that doesn't mean they got everything wrong, it means that going by the evidence they had at the time of writting it, and with the investigations that had been done at the time of writting it, they got the story down the best they could. That is totally different to the reporty being totally wrong or untrustworthy.
Gumboot is right, you are operating on a whole 'nother level of stupid.