Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[tomwaits]

thewholesoul, have you ever been to the DMV? That's your government operation right there. I think you just have a severe case of "THE GOVERNMENT DID IT" without really understanding what "the government" really is. Maybe working as a civil servant would clear you up from that misconception fairly quickly.

Or....maybe it won't. L. Fletcher Prouty was a longtime military and CIA man, who was so crazy that eventually even Oliver Stone doubted his sanity.

 

[brasil]

thewholesoul, have you ever been to the DMV? That's your government operation right there. I think you just have a severe case of "THE GOVERNMENT DID IT" without really understanding what "the government" really is. Maybe working as a civil servant would clear you up from that misconception fairly quickly.

Or....maybe it won't. L. Fletcher Prouty was a longtime military and CIA man, who was so crazy that eventually even Oliver Stone doubted his sanity.

That's one of the weakest arguments i've ever heard. The CIA has at least a 30 or 40 billion dollar budget. There's a "black budget" in this country that is huge, and classified. I think they're just a little better funded than the DMV, and just a little more excited about their job.

 

[thewholesoul]

Would you consider yourself a racist, thewholesoul?

you're just stupendously ignorant of the subject matter.

"In a cave" suggests that you believe the perpetrators lacked the education or the resources to carry out the attacks as detailed. You'd be amazingly wrong on both counts.

no i am not a racist, i am in a mixed race marriage although that is none of your xxxx buisness. i did not come here to defend myself against YOU. you have no idea who i am.

where is chilezero or whatever his name is?

you clearly made a personal insult. and i find it deeply unacceptable.

"in a cave" suggests they were terrorists hidding and plotting in the mountains of afganistan. it could also be interpreted the way you have suggested. i apologise if you are muslim and if i have offended you in any way. but if i am not mistaken ITS YOUR COUNTRY BOMBING RAPING AND PILAGING THE MIDDLE EAST so dont start with all this righteous bs when your probably even for the "stay the course" policy in iraq and the other regions of the world where your corrupt empire now infests.

i wont be responding to you again.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Not surprisingly, everyone is ganging up on thewholesoul and I don't see any intelligent, well-thought out replies to the points I made before they got buried.

Some of us have posted responses to you, not on that particular topic, but on others that have been touched here. You yourself have choosen not to respond to those. Perhaps doing so would be a polite gesture, as your request would turn into one for reciprocation rather than be a straight-out, unreciprocated demand for a response on one of your points, and would also cease being a not-so-veiled insult directed at the readership here (well, maybe that won't change, but whatever). Anyway, as a reminder:

Brasil, in all due respect, TAM is correct. Sagan summarized this ideal in his statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The principle is correct, and validated over time. At risk of digressing from topic: The progression of medical knowledge over time validates this principle, as extraordinary claims without proof fail to not just progress medical science, but often fail to cure patients (i.e. treatments based on humorism), whereas extraordinary claims with proof advance knowledge and cure patients (i.e. Jenner's cowpox experiment, and later application).

We can all agree that your statement about authoritative arguments is correct: Judging a topic merely by who delivers the support is logically fallacious. However, it is not accurate to say that's what many of us here have done: Every one here with whom I'm familiar have indeed studied the claims of both the government and the academic researchers (such as the Purdue team that put together the impact and fire simulation earlier this year) as well as the conspiracy claims, and our stances are the products of our processes of evaluation. To be blunt, the conspiracy claims simply fail upon critical examination.

Also: (*Bump*) Pardon me, but I'm still curious about any responses you may have to the posts I pointed out earlier:

Brasil, there are a few posts in the past that have some substance worth addressing. One particular example addresses your issue with proof of Flight 93:

You missed your chance to hear the Flight 93 CVR recording yourself last year. It was played in a public court session with the public and press present.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/13moussaoui.html

That should be more than good enough. It would serve no further purpose for this tape to float around on Youtube as a kind of macabre entertainment. We are talking about a recording of humans pleading for their lives while they are killed.

Here is the court order protecting the tape:
http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-00455/docs/72176/0.pdf

Would you be willing to provide commentary on that?

And, R. Mackey raises an argument:

However, unless you can show where the 9/11 Commission, NIST, ASCE, NTSB, FAA, FBI, or any other investigating body actually made mistakes, then your complaints don't amount to a hill of beans. We aren't arguing the method of investigation, we're arguing its conclusion. That conclusion is, without a doubt, that 19 hijackers coordinated by al-Qaeda took over four airliners and crashed them deliberately, leading to destruction of numerous buildings and thousands of deaths.

Can you provide commentary on how the investigations conducted by any of the bodies listed above were in error. Of course, I'm not asking for an exhaustive list; rather, I'm seeing if you would provide specific examples of such mistakes. We all can then discuss those points to see whether they truly build to any sort of proof of government conspiracy or not.

Also, your arguments about Mackey's thesis regarding the jet fuel travelling to the basement were rather general; if you could demonstrate in more detail why you think the fuel 1. Wasn't sufficient, and 2. Couldn't have aerosolized, that would be helpful.

Thank you.

 

[Gravy]

Yeah, Jack Kelley, the reporter who faked major stories. Good source.

Ashcroft and Mueller press conference, 9/12/01. Planes.

 

[Gravy]

How about you respond to what i actually wrote and explain why the FBI's first working theory on 9-11 was bombs+airplanes?

It wasn't, nor was Kelley's interview on the 11th. Great research.

 

[brasil]

Yeah, Jack Kelley, the reporter who faked major stories. Good source.

I just finished reading the article in your link before seeing your post after doing the "research" (trying to find more on this story). As Rumsfeld said, "stuff happens." That also doesn't mean he was necessarily incorrect about his assertion about the FBI. At this point, I don't know, and was in the process of finding out more about it. It was a start, and maybe a false start.

 

[LashL]

Did it occur to you that the terrorists would obviously be aware of this and change their methods for getting bombs into the building?

What methods do you believe the terrorists used to get bombs into the World Trade Center buildings?

 

[Slayhamlet]

I just finished reading the article in your link before seeing your post after doing the "research" (trying to find more on this story). As Rumsfeld said, "stuff happens." That also doesn't mean he was necessarily incorrect about his assertion about the FBI. At this point, I don't know, and was in the process of finding out more about it. It was a start, and maybe a false start.

But he's the only source for that claim. The FBI denies that they ever had such a working theory, and no other correspondents anywhere were told of this "working theory".

Why you're quoting Rumsfeld is beyond me.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

no i am not a racist, i am in a mixed race marriage although that is none of your xxxx buisness.

Uhh... You need to calm the hell down. Did you happen to noticed the part of my post where I essentially retracted my labeling of you? Or did you simply choose to ignore it so that you could continue to act indignant?

i did not come here to defend myself against YOU.

And yet here you are. Obviously you think it's necessary in some way. Also, this is a public forum. You don't exactly get a say in who responds to your poorly-worded statements.

you have no idea who i am.

Hey, look... I'm sorry if I offended you, but I think it's time you take a reflective look at your own participation on this thread. You don't know any one of us, either, but you seem to have absolutely no problems slinging baseless insults.

where is chilezero or whatever his name is?

Her name, and you can report any post to the moderators by clicking on the

that appears at the bottom left of that post.

you clearly made a personal insult. and i find it deeply unacceptable.

Actually, I didn't... I was "just asking questions". Heh. Boy, that's annoying, isn't it, when those "questions" insinuate something that isn't true?

. . .so dont start with all this righteous bs when your probably even for the "stay the course" policy in iraq and the other regions of the world where your corrupt empire now infests.

Excuse me? You declare with righteous fury that I don't know you, and then go on to presume that you know me? I believe it's now your turn to apologize to me. Please pull yourself together.

 

[Totovader]

I just finished reading the article in your link before seeing your post after doing the "research" (trying to find more on this story). As Rumsfeld said, "stuff happens." That also doesn't mean he was necessarily incorrect about his assertion about the FBI. At this point, I don't know, and was in the process of finding out more about it. It was a start, and maybe a false start.

So once again, it's "you guys are wrong! you're ignoring my claims!" to "oh a false start"...

At what point are you going to do your own research brasil, and start realizing that every single one of your claims has been addressed- whether you want to actually call them claims or not.

 

[Slayhamlet]

no i am not a racist, i am in a mixed race marriage although that is none of your xxxx buisness. i did not come here to defend myself against YOU. you have no idea who i am.

where is chilezero or whatever his name is?

you clearly made a personal insult. and i find it deeply unacceptable.

"in a cave" suggests they were terrorists hidding and plotting in the mountains of afganistan.

But they weren't hiding or plotting in the mountains of Afghanistan. Either you're lying or you've made a very elementary mistake which should really cause you question your own knowledge about 9/11 and world events in general. Which is it?

 

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul, have you ever been to the DMV? That's your government operation right there. I think you just have a severe case of "THE GOVERNMENT DID IT" without really understanding what "the government" really is. Maybe working as a civil servant would clear you up from that misconception fairly quickly.

Or....maybe it won't. L. Fletcher Prouty was a longtime military and CIA man, who was so crazy that eventually even Oliver Stone doubted his sanity.

the military, not the government, was repsonsible for national defence which happened to be sleeping or god knows what that day.

 

[thewholesoul]

What is it about the planning of the event that you find doubtful? Are you aware of the airliner hijackings that occurred during the 70s and 80s? Is it too much of a stretch for you to think that rather than simply hijack an aircraft, someone could then go and pilot that aircraft into a building?

the execution of the plan is what i find unbelievable. how it could of ever materialised. it should never have happened. what were the military doing?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

the execution of the plan is what i find unbelievable. how it could of ever materialised. it should never have happened. what were the military doing?

Err... "the military" would have only been able to stop the final stages of the plan, if they were in a position to do so. At that point, the plan had quite obviously already materialized. How do you propose that "the military" would have, let's say, stopped the hijackers from boarding the planes? Or are you thinking even further back?

(I have to say, your criticisms don't seem to be very solid or well-founded... at all. You're talking as someone who seems to have nothing more than some vague discontent with what little you know of the events.)

 

[tomwaits]

the military, not the government, was repsonsible for national defence which happened to be sleeping or god knows what that day.

My dad is a Lieutenant Colonel in the army, so I can't claim any DIRECT experience, but from what I've heard and seen from him, the military is fairly inefficient themselves. Relatively, they are likely better than most of the armies from around the world. However, this doesn't mean they can carry out something as absurdly detailed as what you are suggesting. It's time to exit Middle Earth and return to regular Earth.

 

[Reheat]

the military, not the government, was repsonsible for national defence which happened to be sleeping or god knows what that day.

Tell me about it. What is your evidence that the military was sleeping or God knows what that day?

 

[funk de fino]

My point is to show that only once in a long while do we ever hear about these stories, and the majority of the time the intimidation works. I think the Coast Guard incident is an exception.

You THINK? It is either an exception and there has never been any other whistleblowers or you are wrong again.

Sibel Edmonds is an example of a witness/whistleblower case where it has not worked. She was an FBI translator before 9-11 who claims to have proof that the government shut down multiple investigations into terrorism and that the FBI translation office was compromised by foreign spies. She has said her story implicates sitting and former congressman or senators (or both), and reaches into the top levels of government. She has tried every legal avenue to get to tell her story but the threats and gag orders have so far prevented her from talking. She offered all of the major television networks an exclusive interview on the condition that they air it unedited, knowing she will probably be escorted off the set by federal agents. All have refused. You have to wonder what is going on in this situation. What do the networks have to lose by airing what could be the story of the decade? And why is it that her phone is ringing off the hook with invitations from foreign stations? She has refused, obviously. I can't think of a better example to illustrate just how effective intimidation is in cover-ups.

1. Yet you know her story? And were able to tell us?
2. Why would she refuse to tell her story to the UK press?
3. What kind of intimidation would keep you from telling all about the fact you suspect your govt killed 3000 people?

You claim you are bright yet continually fail to show it?

How exactly does Sibel Edmonds fit into the debunker worldview? Seems she has no place whatsoever in it. Does not compute....

Because what she has to say does nothing to help the bombs in the basement theory of yours

 

[Belz...]

below is a point by point argument by mackey concerning the evidence in support of the hypothesis that the explosions were caused by jet fuel. does this evidence remove the possibility that the explosion heard by numerous people in the basement was caused by liquid explosives?


•Rigorous estimate of the jet fuel contained in the aircraft prior to impact

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used.

•Modeling demonstrating that a large fraction of it would remain in the structures

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Architectural diagrams identifying three large pathways from the impact zone to the basement

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements saying that jet fuel was smelled, both throughout the Towers and in the vicinity of the basement explosions

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements that fireballs were seen in the basements

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements of occupants and rescue workers that three elevators were cut by impact, and fell to the basement, leaving a clear pathway

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Burns on victims consistent with jet fuel deflagration

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements that are wholly consistent with jet fuel deflagration

They are also consistent with liquid explosives were used

•Calculations demonstrating the energy of such a deflagration is easily consistent with the level of damage

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•No evidence of major structural damage, such as totally destroyed floors and ceilings, that would be required for a 1993 WTC Bombing style attack

Nobody knows what damage was done to the core in the basement

•Seismic records that demonstrate no detonations at any time

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•No witness statements consistent with the sound of a distinct detonation event

I thought that the fact they reported an “explosion” accounts for something that sounds like an explosion. This could have been liquid explosives

•Precedent in the form of the 1945 Empire State Building aircraft impact

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

because nobody knows what type of explosives, if any, were used means that liquid explosives is a possibility. and none of the evidence provided by mackey removes this possibility, in fact, some of it supports this hypothesis.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[Belz...]

i find your response entirely missed the point i was making in order to throw in a few insults.

whether it was a muslim, jew or some christian in a cave really had nothing to do what i was saying. your twisting my words.

It's that "in a cave" thing I really like.

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

Aw, not this again. What's so hard about crashing a plane into a large building ?

as for osama being a smart guy, i still find it unbelievable that 4 planes can be hijacked and three of them hit three of there targets without the most financed and modern military the world has ever seen doing absolutely nothing...one big whopsy - i dont buy it.

Yeah, we call that an argument from personal incredulity. Basically, you have no evidence that it happened differently than the "official story" says, and you resort to plugging your ears.

if you admit someone made a mistake or incompetance then how can you explain no-one getting punished. only promotions handed out??

That's a completely different subject.

where is chilezero or whatever his name is?

you clearly made a personal insult. and i find it deeply unacceptable.

And now you're crying to mama. How typical. You made comments that seemed clearly racist. If that wasn't your intent, then fine. Stop whining.

the execution of the plan is what i find unbelievable. how it could of ever materialised. it should never have happened. what were the military doing?

The US military are not invincible. Next question.