"Do the orders still stand?" - Person identified

[Sam.I.Am]

There was nothing odd in his "Mantras". He didn't go into that mode until after the caller started asking the same (reworded) questions over again. If anything I was surprised it took him that long to get there. I would've been there about a minute into the call.

 

[CompusMentus]

That's the impression that i got, too. The way in which he repeated his mantras was very odd. That's what led to my confusion about who said the last sentence. I'm actually quite embarrassed about that mistake, because it shows my confirmation bias/wishful thinking. Thanks for catching it, Horatius. It was in time that i was able to edit my earlier post.

Did someone open a window? I smell fresh air.

Compus

 

[Horatius]

That's the impression that i got, too. The way in which he repeated his mantras was very odd. That's what led to my confusion about who said the last sentence. I'm actually quite embarrassed about that mistake, because it shows my confirmation bias/wishful thinking. Thanks for catching it, Horatius. It was in time that i was able to edit my earlier post.

Thank you for acknowledging your mistake.

Of course, the rest of it ends up in personal interpretation. I'm inclined to agree that:

Yes, I think he did want to say more. He wanted to call Hill a loon.

In my job, I occasionally have to talk to less-than-rational people who call me, and sometimes I get into the mode that you see in this video. It starts off quite genially - "Hey, someone's calling to ask a question, I'll tell them what I can!", but, as it becomes clear that the caller has an agenda, it evolves into "How can I get off the phone without saying something that will blow up in my face, if this weirdo complains to my boss/his member of Parliament/Congress/The Press?"

The fall back onto excessive politeness and stonewalling is simply a means of denying the caller any good reasons for registering a complaint.

 

[jammonius]

jam;

cold calling people demanding answers to questions you have, and pestering them over and over again does not make you an investigator, it makes you a stalker.

TAM

Can you recommend any interviews of Douglas Cochrane conducted by, say, debunkers who you consider to be proper investigators? If so, please provide a link or source.

Surely, debunkers have been intrigued by the person who said "do the orders still stand?", right?

What information have debunkers developed that you find useful and suitable about Douglas Cochrane?

thanks

 

[Horatius]

Can you recommend any interviews of Douglas Cochrane conducted by, say, debunkers who you consider to be proper investigators? If so, please provide a link or source.

Surely, debunkers have been intrigued by the person who said "do the orders still stand?", right?

What information have debunkers developed that you find useful and suitable about Douglas Cochrane?

thanks

So you excuse ******* truthers, because no one else has approached him in a respectful manner?


Nice.

 

[jammonius]

Wait a minute, this is serious

Let's go about this the right way.

First, let's provide a link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O0TP_7UWok&feature=player_embedded

Next, let us take what might be considered the single most important question and answer segment and give it a time signature and a quote of its content. That segment might well be as follows:

6:35 Q. Well sir, do you believe we've been told the truth about 9/11?

[2 second pause] A. I have nothing further to add.

Posters, that is a serious piece of information. In response to whether or not the truth has been told, the answer could easily have been yes. But it was not. Douglas Cochrane said, instead, he had nothing further to add.

That is remarkable.

Certainly, a remark like that can and should be interpreted as one casting doubt on the truthfulness of the common storyline of 9/11. This Capt. Cochrane, if that is what his rank is, may turn out to be an important source for cracking open the falsity of 9/11.

Once again, Jeff Hill has done a splendid piece of investigative work here.

What have debunker websites developed concerning Cochrane? Surely they are interested in this individual and in his part in the events of 9/11, right?

Frankly, I have looked a bit and have not found hardly any mention at all of Cochrane in debunker sources. Admittedly, I am not the best one to go searching in debunker websites because I think those websites are stupid, but perhaps those who trust them and rely on them and praise them can point us all to debunker-based information about Douglas Cochrane.

Can someone do that please?

As things now stand, it appears Jeff Hill has taken an important investigative step that is not only uncontradicted, it is also unmatched.

What do debunkers have to show in this respect?

 

[Lyrandar]

6:35 Q. Well sir, do you believe we've been told the truth about 9/11?

[2 second pause] A. I have nothing further to add.

Posters, that is a serious piece of information. In response to whether or not the truth has been told, the answer could easily have been yes. But it was not. Douglas Cochrane said, instead, he had nothing further to add.

That is remarkable.

Certainly, a remark like that can and should be interpreted as one casting doubt on the truthfulness of the common storyline of 9/11. This Capt. Cochrane, if that is what his rank is, may turn out to be an important source for cracking open the falsity of 9/11.

... Actually, just about any government official would almost certainly rather say nothing than answer a question like that. Since he's in the Navy, he may well have specific orders not to talk to the press (or anyone else who might quote him and put it on the Internet). Also, that's standard policy, as far as I know - this wouldn't be a specific ban on him talking about 9/11 for some malicious reason.

Even that speculation is rather pointless, though - while we can say whatever we like and draw whatever conclusions we like from what he says, ultimately saying we should draw any conclusion about what he intended to imply is difficult given that the only person who knows what Cochrane intended to imply is Cochrane himself.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

... Actually, just about any government official would almost certainly rather say nothing than answer a question like that. Since he's in the Navy, he may well have specific orders not to talk to the press (or anyone else who might quote him and put it on the Internet). Also, that's standard policy, as far as I know - this wouldn't be a specific ban on him talking about 9/11 for some malicious reason.

Even that speculation is rather pointless, though - while we can say whatever we like and draw whatever conclusions we like from what he says, ultimately saying we should draw any conclusion about what he intended to imply is difficult given that the only person who knows what Cochrane intended to imply is Cochrane himself.

When I was in the Navy (and not at the duty station where I was expected to interact with the general public on a daily basis) the general rule was to decline any interview as it related to my job and direct them to the base PAO (Public Affairs Office) or other higher authority. I already related above what we did at my duty station where I did interact with the general public in the situation where someone insisted on an answer I either couldn't or wouldn't give. Point them to a higher authority, which in this case is what was done by directing him to read the 9/11 CR for his answers.

This falls under SOP for almost anything like this.

 

[jammonius]

There goes Jam off the deep (or is that Derp?) end again.

Tell me Jam, at what point did the officer ask any questions, much less "How'd you get my military cell phone"? What makes you think that you can ever be taken seriously if you can't get the most basic facts correct but instead listen to what the voices in your head tell you what was said instead of actually listening to what was said.

Lurkers and posters. This is a good example of what I meant above when I stated "This is not because of some nefarious scheme but because people often hear what they want to hear". The most prudent recourse is to just say nothing or, when that's not an option, refer them to the record as to what happened. Then again people like Jammy can't even do that without adding in things that aren't there either.

Take it easy, Sam, we're all just trying to do the best we can, right? This thread is new, we haven't really had a chance to do a lot with the information we have been presented here with. You are quite right that I misquoted Douglas Cochrane. However, there were a number of ways you could have treated that error, including merely correcting it.

You chose, however, to turn the error into a form of "gotcha" and that is alright if that is how you view the posting process. As you may know, I don't play "gotcha games" because I don't think they add anything useful.

We all make mistakes. Here, I will now correct the one I made concerning Douglas Cochrane's reference to his cell phone. He said "government cell phone" not military cell phone as I previously posted.

Here's a better transcription of what he said with a little more context. Mind you, even this one might not be totally verbatim, but it is closer than I had posted previously:

5:04 - 5:29 "...Like I said I appreciate your inquisitive nature, ah, I am somewhat of a history buff myself. I appreciate your quest for knowledge, but I don't have anything else to add. And, and frankly this is kind of an imposition to call me on my government cell phone. I'm really not, I don't think it's appropriate, certainly not appreciated."

There is much food for thought contained in the foregoing investigative information made possible by the efforts of Jeff Hill.

Permit me to suggest we treat this matter as "information" and that we take a cooperative approach to assessing it.

Does anyone have the capacity to provide an entire transcript that can be posted up for common usage?

 

[TexasJack]

Cochrane repeats a half dozen times that the 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative of the events that happened that day, and repeats over a dozen times that he has nothing further to add. It sounds pretty obvious that he is backing up the "official story" truthers, correct?

Cochrane remained polite and professional, and I commend him for it, despite having to repeat himself so often.

 

[Horatius]

Permit me to suggest we treat this matter as "information" and that we take a cooperative approach to assessing it.

If "we" are to take a "cooperative" approach to analyzing this video, then such biased accounts as this:

Next, let us take what might be considered the single most important question and answer segment and give it a time signature and a quote of its content. That segment might well be as follows:

6:35 Q. Well sir, do you believe we've been told the truth about 9/11?

[2 second pause] A. I have nothing further to add.

...should have no part of it. On the basis of nothing more than your own desire to inflate the importance of this exchange, you've declared it "the single most important question and answer segment", without noting that it takes place about 4 minutes after he first said he wasn't prepared to talk about this issue (time about 2:32)*, and about 3:15 after he first said he didn't have anything else to add to it (time 3:15). For you to latch onto a repetition that far along in the conversation, and declare it "the single most important question and answer segment" is purely dishonest, disingenuous, and dismaying.




*Which was pretty much the first substantive thing he said in the whole conversation.

 

[Reheat]

Any attempt to draw inferences from this "interview" (other than that this Jeff Hill is a jackass) is both humorous and asinine. As has already been pointed out Cochrane's responses are really SOP for questions of this nature to a military person of any and all ranks.

I commend him for not getting annoyed after having to repeat himself several times and saying what he would have preferred to say which most likely would been something along the lines of "FO and don't bother me again you obnoxious bastid"!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Frankly, I have looked a bit and have not found hardly any mention at all of Cochrane in debunker sources. Admittedly, I am not the best one to go searching in debunker websites because I think those websites are stupid, but perhaps those who trust them and rely on them and praise them can point us all to debunker-based information about Douglas Cochrane.

Look at the title of this thread - the news is that Cochrane was identified. I linked to a thread on prisonplanet forum where the research was done. Hill's call first of all confirmed that Cochrane is indeed the person in question.

So MikeW here has some work to do to update his site.

 

[MikeW]

So MikeW here has some work to do to update his site.

>shrug< - most truthers have yet to even acknowledge the existence of the first document referring to logs of Mineta's arrival time, which I pointed out in February 2009:

(hotlinked from my own site)

So if anyone has significant site updates to make, I really don't think it's me.

 

[T.A.M.]

Can you recommend any interviews of Douglas Cochrane conducted by, say, debunkers who you consider to be proper investigators? If so, please provide a link or source.

Surely, debunkers have been intrigued by the person who said "do the orders still stand?", right?

What information have debunkers developed that you find useful and suitable about Douglas Cochrane?

thanks

Who here claims to be an investigator. That was my only point. You can call him curious, you can call him brave (though I prefer creepily stalkish), but he is not an investigator in any accepted term of the word that I can see.

He is a stalker.

TAM

 

[TJM]

Let's go about this the right way. <blather snipped>

My impressions, now that I've actually watched the ambush:

1. High level government employees aren't likely to give impromptu phone interviews.

2. Mr. Cochrane very likely and correctly deduced he was being recorded.

3. His demeanor was 100% professional.

Now then jammonius, the above aside, where the hell do you get off finding fault with Mr. Cochrane for refusing to answer those questions? By your own standards you yourself would've hand waved those questions away because you don't play "20 questions" or "Gotcha".

THAT is rich, you hypocrite. Gotcha.

 

[ArcanumNoctis]

So the naval officer was suppose to say on a government cell phone that he thinks the government is lying?

LOL, so stupid.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's the research leading to his identification.

Your link is a prisonplanet.com forum post.

 

[Oystein]

...
Now then jammonius, the above aside, where the hell do you get off finding fault with Mr. Cochrane for refusing to answer those questions? By your own standards you yourself would've hand waved those questions away because you don't play "20 questions" or "Gotcha".

THAT is rich, you hypocrite. Gotcha.

Hehe *thumbs up*

 

[beachnut]

Thank you for your speculation about the interview conducted by Jeff Hill with Douglas F. Cochrane. Your opinion concerning why Cochrane did not answer questions is as good as anyone else's.

I, for one, have a different view on the interview. I think Cochrane wants to be able to say more than he did. I have elsewhere given my impression about what he wants to say.

all the best

... wrong again. The best you can do is call jet engine parts Plymouth wheel-covers. You have delusion on 911, it is no wonder you think when the guy says the official story stands, you have to make up lies based on your delusions.