Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[MikeW]

My FOIA response letter from the Secret Service finally arrived (re: their records of when Mineta arrived at the White House). And... It doesn't contain anything useful.

Right now the government is trying to make the case that White House visitor records are Presidential documents, not Secret Service records, and so not subject to the FOIA. There's a court case ongoing about this & they say they'll "respond further to my request if necessary" once the litigation is resolved. So that could be a very long time.

Might be useful to check, though... The case they cite is "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Dept. of Homeland Security, et al., Civil No. 06-1912, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia". I've Googled for that and come up with some more information, but can any of our legal folks tell us anything more, how the case is going, what might happen next, what appeals are possible and how much longer it might drag on?

Of course there's always the hope that an Obama Presidency might squash some of these things, so as to be immediately seen as more open. If so I might get an answer in just a few months. Here's hoping.

 

[T.A.M.]

What valid arguments? People are asking me to re state what I've been posting over the course of 3000+ posts. I've identified this as the "write the book" gambit.

You made the comment that there was virtually no physical evidence obtained from the PA and DC sites.

Some of us then mentioned the proof, the physical evidence that was obtained from these sites.

So do you consider this evidence (that we mentioned earlier) to be faked, invalid, or what? You made the comment, so either you consider the evidence we mentioned to be valid, and retract the statement that there was virtually no physical evidence from the PA and DC sites, or you must state that you feel this evidence is fake or invalid. If the latter is the case, i would like you to justify why you feel the evidence is fake or invalid.

Thanks

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

My FOIA response letter from the Secret Service finally arrived (re: their records of when Mineta arrived at the White House). And... It doesn't contain anything useful.

Right now the government is trying to make the case that White House visitor records are Presidential documents, not Secret Service records, and so not subject to the FOIA. There's a court case ongoing about this & they say they'll "respond further to my request if necessary" once the litigation is resolved. So that could be a very long time.

Might be useful to check, though... The case they cite is "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Dept. of Homeland Security, et al., Civil No. 06-1912, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia". I've Googled for that and come up with some more information, but can any of our legal folks tell us anything more, how the case is going, what might happen next, what appeals are possible and how much longer it might drag on?

Of course there's always the hope that an Obama Presidency might squash some of these things, so as to be immediately seen as more open. If so I might get an answer in just a few months. Here's hoping.

oih...more fodder for the paranoid.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

bump, gentle reminder to use this thread for comments etc...that do not need their own thread.

TAM

 

[1337m4n]

So do you consider this evidence (that we mentioned earlier) to be faked, invalid, or what? You made the comment, so either you consider the evidence we mentioned to be valid, and retract the statement that there was virtually no physical evidence from the PA and DC sites, or you must state that you feel this evidence is fake or invalid. If the latter is the case, i would like you to justify why you feel the evidence is fake or invalid.

Difficult questions; the surest way to get RedIbis to run away from a thread never to be seen until such time has passed as he can pretend the question was never asked in the first place.

More specifically, it is not merely "difficult" questions but rather any question which would require Red to actually state his opinions clearly rather than speaking in words so cryptic it would require a professional codebreaker to decipher his true meaning.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Difficult questions; the surest way to get RedIbis to run away from a thread never to be seen until such time has passed as he can pretend the question was never asked in the first place.

Or someone gives him something else to respond to with pseudo-indignation.

/me stealthily points at 1337m4n.

 

[T.A.M.]

yes I did notice he has not responded, nor has he to much of what I have posted here.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

What valid arguments? People are asking me to re state what I've been posting over the course of 3000+ posts. I've identified this as the "write the book" gambit.

RedIbis, what I've been unable to find is any single post or reasonably small collection of posts from you that summarises what you believe happened on 9/11. Could you please post a link to a post, or some links to a set of posts, that would reasonably represent your conclusions?

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, what I've been unable to find is any single post or reasonably small collection of posts from you that summarises what you believe happened on 9/11. Could you please post a link to a post, or some links to a set of posts, that would reasonably represent your conclusions?

Dave

How about #657? I compare the three competing theories.

 

[dtugg]

How about #657? I compare the three competing theories.

Please. All you really said was that you think that LIHOP is unlikely because then it would seem that NIST wasn't lying about WTC7. And that with MIHOP there were more options to the "perps." That is not summarizing your views about what happened.

Are you too cowardly to tell us what you think happened that day?

 

[Dave Rogers]

How about #657? I compare the three competing theories.

If there were only three, that would at least be a starting point. However, I'd be interested to know what degree of MIHOP you believe is likely. Was the government's involvement limited to an agent provocateur role, as the impetus behind the decision of al-Qaeda to carry out the attacks, did it help things along by suppressing the defensive response as well, or were the attacks entirely carried out by the government, or by a different government? There are so many different MIHOP scenarios that have been proposed that the simple acronym doesn't really narrow things down much.

Please note that I'm quite specifically not asking you to "write the book" here. I'm just asking you to add a few chapter headings to the "MIHOP" book title.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

bump

 

[chipmunk stew]

I last visited & posted in this section about ten months ago. I'm really annoyed that the they are still pounding away at the very same bent nails. I was hoping to find some fresh entertainment.

Am I missing something? Are there any fun new twists, events, anecdotes or other Truthertainment from the past ten months that I must experience for myself? A Best Of thread list?

I am really depressed that Christopher 7's 10ft hole thread is still on the front page...

 

[T.A.M.]

Well in a nutshell...

a brief flare over the WTC7 Final Report.
a brief scuffle over the occasional bit of insanity out of CIT.
a bunch of useless threads calling people out or even less...This thread is an attempt to lessen that.
and a suggestion from Gravy that we go through the archives, which we did, and create a list of the "best of" threads for various 9/11 topics.

Apart from that, you didn't miss much.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

and a suggestion from Gravy that we go through the archives, which we did, and create a list of the "best of" threads for various 9/11 topics.

How is this going? I haven't heard much and I'm interested to see the results of this project.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Well in a nutshell...

a brief flare over the WTC7 Final Report.
a brief scuffle over the occasional bit of insanity out of CIT.
a bunch of useless threads calling people out or even less...This thread is an attempt to lessen that.
and a suggestion from Gravy that we go through the archives, which we did, and create a list of the "best of" threads for various 9/11 topics.

Apart from that, you didn't miss much.

TAM

Where's this Best Of list?

Were the Stundies continued?

 

[T.A.M.]

How is this going? I haven't heard much and I'm interested to see the results of this project.

Where's this Best Of list?

Were the Stundies continued?

You will have to ask Gravy. Myself and many others took a page of about 250 threads each and did our best to pick out the good, and the outstanding, from the chafe, and the rest, I do believe, was in Mark's hands. Given the sheer volume, I would give it a while.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

You will have to ask Gravy. Myself and many others took a page of about 250 threads each and did our best to pick out the good, and the outstanding, from the chafe, and the rest, I do believe, was in Mark's hands. Given the sheer volume, I would give it a while.

TAM

I can't ask Gravy, he's intermittently put me on ignore or taken me off ignore depending on which way the wind is blowing, and never quite explained why.

 

[Baylor]

I used to think this thread was just another AAH thread. But now I see its purpose, to keep parky from starting another new thread. I didn't work. Good try though, good try.

 

[Thunder]

I used to think this thread was just another AAH thread. But now I see its purpose, to keep parky from starting another new thread. I didn't work. Good try though, good try.

i can't be stopped!!!!