-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
What an assumption-riddled drivel! There is a man who you know precisely nothing about, except for what you see and hear in the video, and yet you assume, in the total absence of supporting evidence, that he is part of an imagined "PSYOP".
It appears strongly that your twisting of a witness' statements is the clumsy attempt at engaging in some PsyOp of your own!
Luckily, the Gentleman With The Hard Hat was working on the rooftop of a building near Ground Zero and saw what he saw, without being told. He reports a big plane. had he been psy-oped with the MSM news of "small plane", then he was strong of mind and independend enough to see through this psy-opping, and report his truth: That of a "big plane".
All the actual witnesses? None in the Dick Oliver video were in a position to see the top of the towers and the sky around them. This makes them less valuable witnesses than Our Man With The Hard Hat, whose position we know exactly (rooftop of 25 Park Place), and know to be a perfect location to both see and hear the first plane, both during its approach and during its crash "right in the middle" of the Trade Center tower. This in stark contrast, for example, to Dick Oliver and his crew, whose view was blocked by trees, or Our Lady Of The PATH Train, who was 60 feet underground.
The fallacy you here committed is known by several names: "Assuming the Conclusion", or "Begging the Question", or, classically, "petitio principii"m which, as Wikipedia explains, "is committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
In particular, you assume OMHH to be part of a PSYOP, and then procede to recruit this assumption as proof that a PSYOP was executed at all.
Posters and lurkers may also remember other real evidence: "...sounded like a plane crash..." (Dick Oliver's camerman) or "...we did hear of what sounded like, sounded like an aircraft..." (Dick Oliver himself).
And that is a bare-assed assumption, a claim without support.
The claim for 10:24 is fully unproven
Oystein,
Basically, you need to give up on your 10:24 claim.
You acknowledge the following:
It is true, we can't absolutely prove one or the other theory at this point in time. We would have to trace back the chain of custody of the recording, along with all possible video conversions and edits, to a person originally recording it and then determine if the original recording showed basically the same video and audio, and what in time zone it was broadcast.
That acknowledgment comes too late in the process. Earlier on, you constructed a weak, incongruent, inconclusive argument in support of the desparate attempt to "buy" an hour's time for OMHH to get in front of a camera after being atop 25 Park Place. You did it this way:
"Forward a little in the video to 1m32s, where we see the North Tower still standing - clock reads 9:27". Here's how it looks in the actual post:
Right there you have constructed an incongruency. The video is not continuous. It is a compilation video. Furthermore, the segment you pulled for the 9:27 Central claim is not even Fox video. It is CBS video, as is seen.
But look. This issue is not that important and does not advance the central theme of this thread very much. A lot of argumentation on a phoiney witness is simply not necessary, imho.
Clearly, OMHH, as a witness, is a basic fraud for precisely the reason that he is too good to be true. He saw what no one else saw and is simply not credibile, not simply because he could not have gotten to the camera from where he was in the time demanded, but because what he said is contradicted by the validly sourced witnesses.
I will not engage with you further in this distraction. Your video witness is phoney and a proper basis for that claim has been established.
Remember: I do not care in the least bit what you believe about that witness. You can believe he is valid and that he was recorded at 10:24AM EDT and presented at 9:24AM CDT all you want. That is fine. You can't prove it; you haven't proven it; and, in any event, the fact remains it says 9:24 and it originates from NYC.
You may have the last word on this if you like. I think your claim fails and I will now return to posting about SAIC, ARA, and other stalwarts of the MIC as they relate to 9/11. Once again, a TIPPING POINT has been reached in the discussion, all as is confirmed by the desparate reliance on a false and phoney witness who is exposed for being in the right place at the wrong time, thus rendering his claim absurdly false.
all the best
Oystein,
Basically, you need to give up on your 10:24 claim.
You acknowledge the following:
It is true, we can't absolutely prove one or the other theory at this point in time. We would have to trace back the chain of custody of the recording, along with all possible video conversions and edits, to a person originally recording it and then determine if the original recording showed basically the same video and audio, and what in time zone it was broadcast.
That acknowledgment comes too late in the process. Earlier on, you constructed a weak, incongruent, inconclusive argument in support of the desparate attempt to "buy" an hour's time for OMHH to get in front of a camera after being atop 25 Park Place. You did it this way:
"Forward a little in the video to 1m32s, where we see the North Tower still standing - clock reads 9:27". Here's how it looks in the actual post:
Right there you have constructed an incongruency. The video is not continuous. It is a compilation video. Furthermore, the segment you pulled for the 9:27 Central claim is not even Fox video. It is CBS video, as is seen.
But look. This issue is not that important and does not advance the central theme of this thread very much. A lot of argumentation on a phoiney witness is simply not necessary, imho.
Clearly, OMHH, as a witness, is a basic fraud for precisely the reason that he is too good to be true. He saw what no one else saw and is simply not credibile, not simply because he could not have gotten to the camera from where he was in the time demanded, but because what he said is contradicted by the validly sourced witnesses.
I will not engage with you further in this distraction. Your video witness is phoney and a proper basis for that claim has been established.
Remember: I do not care in the least bit what you believe about that witness. You can believe he is valid and that he was recorded at 10:24AM EDT and presented at 9:24AM CDT all you want. That is fine. You can't prove it; you haven't proven it; and, in any event, the fact remains it says 9:24 and it originates from NYC.
You may have the last word on this if you like. I think your claim fails and I will now return to posting about SAIC, ARA, and other stalwarts of the MIC as they relate to 9/11. Once again, a TIPPING POINT has been reached in the discussion, all as is confirmed by the desparate reliance on a false and phoney witness who is exposed for being in the right place at the wrong time, thus rendering his claim absurdly false.
all the best
Last edited:
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
I'll add that to the "JAMMO" (Jammonius' Avoidance Method Modus Operandi) list then:-
Family Members? Paid off.
DNA evidence? Planted.
Radar tracks? Falsified.
Video? Faked.
Audio? Inconclusive.
Eyewitnesses? Duped (or Psy-ops)
News Reports? Fabricated.
Expert Testimony? Corrupt .
Non-truther sources? Propaganda.
Passengers? Vicsims.
Debris? Bogus.
Documentary Evidence? Psyops.
Empirical Data? Superfluous.
Energy Requirements? Unnecessary.
Compus
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
The transmission showed a collapse that did not occur until 10:28 EDT.
When indisputable evidence conflicts with jammonius's belief, jammonius rejects the evidence without disputing it.
When no evidence supports jammonius's belief, jammonus asserts his belief.
Because he's standing on his head, jammonius thinks we're about to tip over.
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Haha, wait... So jammonius is now indirectly arguing that the North Tower collapsed exactly one hour before the "official story" says it collapsed?
What about the South Tower? Did that collapse exactly one hour before the "official story" indicates, or did the North Tower actually collapse before the South Tower (and all those videos of the North Tower collapse showing an already-missing South Tower were utterly incompetent fakes)?
What about the South Tower? Did that collapse exactly one hour before the "official story" indicates, or did the North Tower actually collapse before the South Tower (and all those videos of the North Tower collapse showing an already-missing South Tower were utterly incompetent fakes)?
Returning to "...it's the MIC..." and to SAIC
Let's reiterate where we stand with respect to SAIC and 9/11:
"After 9/11, SAIC supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the WTC investigation conducted NIST. At the same time, “SAIC personnel were instrumental in pressing the case that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and that war was the only way to get rid of them.”[28]
See: http://911blogger.com/node/22120
See also source re footnote 28: Charlie Cray, "Science Applications International Corporation," CorpWatch, http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=17 ; cf. Barlett and Steele, "Washington's $8 Billion Shadow."
Sooner or later some posters are probably going to start addressing SAIC and ARA and their role in 9/11. I feel certain that some lurkers are already thinking this through.
That is good. Please continue.
Thanks in advance for your seen and unseen contributions.
all the best
Let's reiterate where we stand with respect to SAIC and 9/11:
"After 9/11, SAIC supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the WTC investigation conducted NIST. At the same time, “SAIC personnel were instrumental in pressing the case that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and that war was the only way to get rid of them.”[28]
See: http://911blogger.com/node/22120
See also source re footnote 28: Charlie Cray, "Science Applications International Corporation," CorpWatch, http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=17 ; cf. Barlett and Steele, "Washington's $8 Billion Shadow."
Sooner or later some posters are probably going to start addressing SAIC and ARA and their role in 9/11. I feel certain that some lurkers are already thinking this through.
That is good. Please continue.
Thanks in advance for your seen and unseen contributions.
all the best
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
All of this blather about the corporations involved in the Star Wars programs proves nothing in regard to their involvement in the attack on the towers. You need to prove motive, means, and opportunity to prove even the most ephemeral case based on circumstantial evidence, and you have to explain it in a way that seems plausible to twelve people randomly selected from tax or driver licensing rolls.
Aint happening here, bro.
Let me address these requirements individually, starting with the motive.
You need to prove that a corporation with the ability to use a hurricane to produce electrical power sufficient to drive the most awesome weapo every assembled could make more money by employing that weapon in a way that might ecconomicly destroy a nation and then keep it a secret so that the technology could never be marketed.
Just the tech to tap a hurricane would be worth more than the gross domestic product of a couiple of industrialized nations.
Any army in the world would be eager to pawn the ecconomic future of their grandchildren to posess the technology to burn down every rival military instalation that could be a threat to them from a comfortable stand-off position.
That the corporation that could make the weapons and energy sources to do what we saw would be willing to settle for what a bankrupt nation could pay them makes no bloody sense.
You have not yet defined the form of energy used, nor shown that an unknown category of weapons has been made, tested and deployed. You have shown that they make lasers, but anyone with experience in that area laughs at that as a possible tool in the work done. You would also have to deal with expert witnesses who will refute your evidence, such as the toasted cars. This would not be difficult to arrange, nor expensive. Your local fire chief could easily convince any jury in the country that was not hand-picked by a county official with ties to the militia movement that you are talking through the seat of your pants. All you have is the fact that, if a weapon of the sort you envision could be built, the accused have the capability to build it. You have not, however, shown what energy could be directed to do the damage observed, or that it is possible to build a weapon that directs that energy.
Opportunity is a serious flaw in this case. There was never an opportunity to launch a space-based platform the size of a Galaxy Class starship with a Romulan cloaking device and position it over the towers. Land-based installations would have to have been placed on buildings in the area and would have been so large as to attract the attention of and cause great annoyance to the management of those and surrounding buildings.
I do not see the average person with no technical background favoring your position over than of the various nerds, fire fighters, cops and medical personnel who could be called in to testify to the absurdity of your claims.
That you would tell a deranged of twit that she has a case says a great deal about your skill in forensic debate (or your ethics, if you are getting paid to take this to court, win or lose, or profiting in any way from the publication of your failed science.)
Just my opinion as the sort of person who might be called for jury duty when you get to a real trial.
Aint happening here, bro.
Let me address these requirements individually, starting with the motive.
You need to prove that a corporation with the ability to use a hurricane to produce electrical power sufficient to drive the most awesome weapo every assembled could make more money by employing that weapon in a way that might ecconomicly destroy a nation and then keep it a secret so that the technology could never be marketed.
Just the tech to tap a hurricane would be worth more than the gross domestic product of a couiple of industrialized nations.
Any army in the world would be eager to pawn the ecconomic future of their grandchildren to posess the technology to burn down every rival military instalation that could be a threat to them from a comfortable stand-off position.
That the corporation that could make the weapons and energy sources to do what we saw would be willing to settle for what a bankrupt nation could pay them makes no bloody sense.
You have not yet defined the form of energy used, nor shown that an unknown category of weapons has been made, tested and deployed. You have shown that they make lasers, but anyone with experience in that area laughs at that as a possible tool in the work done. You would also have to deal with expert witnesses who will refute your evidence, such as the toasted cars. This would not be difficult to arrange, nor expensive. Your local fire chief could easily convince any jury in the country that was not hand-picked by a county official with ties to the militia movement that you are talking through the seat of your pants. All you have is the fact that, if a weapon of the sort you envision could be built, the accused have the capability to build it. You have not, however, shown what energy could be directed to do the damage observed, or that it is possible to build a weapon that directs that energy.
Opportunity is a serious flaw in this case. There was never an opportunity to launch a space-based platform the size of a Galaxy Class starship with a Romulan cloaking device and position it over the towers. Land-based installations would have to have been placed on buildings in the area and would have been so large as to attract the attention of and cause great annoyance to the management of those and surrounding buildings.
I do not see the average person with no technical background favoring your position over than of the various nerds, fire fighters, cops and medical personnel who could be called in to testify to the absurdity of your claims.
That you would tell a deranged of twit that she has a case says a great deal about your skill in forensic debate (or your ethics, if you are getting paid to take this to court, win or lose, or profiting in any way from the publication of your failed science.)
Just my opinion as the sort of person who might be called for jury duty when you get to a real trial.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
Gladly. Here is where we stand:
Two big planes crashed into the twin towers, as clearly witnessed by the Gentleman with the Hard Hat. See his witness testimony of 10:24a.m. Eastern Time on live TV.
SAIC and ARA were not involved. At least not a shred of evidence has been put forward by anyone, least of all Judy Wood and Jerry Leaphart. The number of posters and lurkers coming forward to tell you that you are deluded on that issue continues to rise.
Oystein's conception of valid evidence
Proof of what happened on 9/11 in NYC, as put forward by Oystein consists in propaganda soundbites that come from FOX NEWS:
Not only is the above useless, utterly and completely as evidence, originating as it does from Fox News, which, by the way, is neither better nor worse than any other newspaper or teevee station.
The point is, people are conditioned to believing what they see/hear on teevee despite it being a medium of illusion, totally useless as evidence.
Not only that, the 10:24 claim requires a series of untested and unproven assumptions. The plain fact of the matter is that the visual graphic does not even say what Oystein claims it says.
This is akin to having it both ways; believing what is seen and heard on teevee when convenient; changing what is seen on teevee when necessary.
That is not rich; that is poor.
That is contradicted by the sourced material contained in this thread, which material includes validly attributed quotes from official documents, like the NIST NCSTAR1 report confirming SAIC and ARA involvement; other valid sources that are sourced, unlike anything in Oystein's propaganda blitz.
This is in utter disregard of post after post in this multipage thread. There is little point in reiterating 28 pages of sourced material. It's here for those who wish to see and it is here for those who need to engage in denial, progaganda, distortion and misrepresentation.
People are, indeed, coming forward and will likely to continue to do so. As previously indicated, a TIPPING POINT has been reached.
That is good.
Proof of what happened on 9/11 in NYC, as put forward by Oystein consists in propaganda soundbites that come from FOX NEWS:
Not only is the above useless, utterly and completely as evidence, originating as it does from Fox News, which, by the way, is neither better nor worse than any other newspaper or teevee station.
The point is, people are conditioned to believing what they see/hear on teevee despite it being a medium of illusion, totally useless as evidence.
Not only that, the 10:24 claim requires a series of untested and unproven assumptions. The plain fact of the matter is that the visual graphic does not even say what Oystein claims it says.
This is akin to having it both ways; believing what is seen and heard on teevee when convenient; changing what is seen on teevee when necessary.
That is not rich; that is poor.
That is contradicted by the sourced material contained in this thread, which material includes validly attributed quotes from official documents, like the NIST NCSTAR1 report confirming SAIC and ARA involvement; other valid sources that are sourced, unlike anything in Oystein's propaganda blitz.
This is in utter disregard of post after post in this multipage thread. There is little point in reiterating 28 pages of sourced material. It's here for those who wish to see and it is here for those who need to engage in denial, progaganda, distortion and misrepresentation.
People are, indeed, coming forward and will likely to continue to do so. As previously indicated, a TIPPING POINT has been reached.
That is good.
Last edited:
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Proof of what happened on 9/11 in NYC, as put forward by Oystein consists in propaganda soundbites that come from FOX NEWS:
Not only is the above useless, utterly and completely as evidence, originating as it does from Fox News, which, by the way, is neither better nor worse than any other newspaper or teevee station.
The point is, people are conditioned to believing what they see/hear on teevee despite it being a medium of illusion, totally useless as evidence.
Not only that, the 10:24 claim requires a series of untested and unproven assumptions. The plain fact of the matter is that the visual graphic does not even say what Oystein claims it says.
This is akin to having it both ways; believing what is seen and heard on teevee when convenient; changing what is seen on teevee when necessary.
That is not rich; that is poor.
That is contradicted by the sourced material contained in this thread, which material includes validly attributed quotes from official documents, like the NIST NCSTAR1 report confirming SAIC and ARA involvement; other valid sources that are sourced, unlike anything in Oystein's propaganda blitz.
This is in utter disregard of post after post in this multipage thread. There is little point in reiterating 28 pages of sourced material. It's here for those who wish to see and it is here for those who need to engage in denial, progaganda, distortion and misrepresentation.
People are, indeed, coming forward and will likely to continue to do so. As previously indicated, a TIPPING POINT has been reached.
That is good.
Jammy, there's 2 things you've said about yourself which you didn't catch:
Keep digging yourself a grave buddy!
WD,
Your post # 1105 states;
That assertion contains within it an unproven assumption, at best, and one that is not properly documented. The underlying video is a compilation. Not only do you assume the video is continuous, but the segment you rely on clearly shows it comes from WCBS and not from Fox News as is the case with OMHH at 9:24; if you are relying on the video segment I think you are.
You have not documented your claim, so I cannot be positive of the above observation. At best, then, your claim is unproven.
I am, nonetheless, amazed at the length debunkers appear to be willing to go to try to rehabilitate a person who is not a valid witness because he originates from stupid teevee and we do not even know the person's name; at least not so far as is sourced by supporters of the validity of the witness.
This is pathetic. However, that is the point. Supporters of the common storyline of 9/11 as it relates to jets hitting the WTC have very little evidence to go on.
The video of the guy in the hard hat is pathetically weak and is not even admissible as evidence in any sort of formal proceeding. It is just a teevee snipet.
It is useless.
Please consider wasting no more time on trying to use what is not valid evidence to prove the common storyline. By doing that, you are engaging in a desparate ploy that only serves to confirm the absence of proof of the claim a jetliner hit the South Tower.
Your post # 1105 states;
That assertion contains within it an unproven assumption, at best, and one that is not properly documented. The underlying video is a compilation. Not only do you assume the video is continuous, but the segment you rely on clearly shows it comes from WCBS and not from Fox News as is the case with OMHH at 9:24; if you are relying on the video segment I think you are.
You have not documented your claim, so I cannot be positive of the above observation. At best, then, your claim is unproven.
I am, nonetheless, amazed at the length debunkers appear to be willing to go to try to rehabilitate a person who is not a valid witness because he originates from stupid teevee and we do not even know the person's name; at least not so far as is sourced by supporters of the validity of the witness.
This is pathetic. However, that is the point. Supporters of the common storyline of 9/11 as it relates to jets hitting the WTC have very little evidence to go on.
The video of the guy in the hard hat is pathetically weak and is not even admissible as evidence in any sort of formal proceeding. It is just a teevee snipet.
It is useless.
Please consider wasting no more time on trying to use what is not valid evidence to prove the common storyline. By doing that, you are engaging in a desparate ploy that only serves to confirm the absence of proof of the claim a jetliner hit the South Tower.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
And you have no evidence to support your lame ass no-planes theory. Just like your sorry excuse for the DEW theory! Talk about pathetic, you take the cake!
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
Since Fox News shows propaganda soundbites, I take your second quote to mean that the footage from WCBS is more reliable?
How about your dear "...jist an explosion" soundbite - wasn't that from Fox?
At any rate, what you assume, without proof, to be a compilation video, is in fact an uninterrupted video recording of Fox News. If you ever watched any news TV, you will have noticed that they often switch from one image source to the next while continuing with their text captions and talk. If they show footage by another corporation, they do they right thing and assign credit where credit is due. Showing LIVE footage taken from WCBS does not make that footage un-live. Fox showed the collapse of the North Tower while displaying a time of 9:28. Since the North Tower did not fall until 10:28 local time New York, this is 100% proof that this segment was not aired by Fox on 9:28 local time New York on 9/11/2001. It must have been aired at 10:28 New York time, or possibly later.
From this follows that the interview with Our Gentleman with the Hard Hat was aired at 10:24 local time New York, or possibly later.
This erases your initial argument that he could not have witnesses the second plane crash at 9:03 and been on the street for an interview at 9:24.
Now if you assume (without evidence, but of course you are free to riddle your posts with as many assumptions as you like) that the video is a composite and does not show its segment in live order, then of course your original argument that the interview took place at 9:24 is screwed as well. You either accept the broadcast was indeed live of Fox News, then it was 10:24, or you do not accept it, then you don't know what time tge interview took place.
In conclusion, the witness testimony of the Gentleman with the Hard Hat stands unrefuted on its own merits:
I was on top of the roof, 25 Park Place, me and the super. S... heard the wild noise from the jet. We look up and we see this big jet like a 737 or a 727 ... It was a big jet. We saw it come, just looking like it sideways, at first we thought it was just gonna try to miss it - BANG! Right into the middle of it, like around the 70th floor, and then, half hour later, we see the second one bang into it. We're on the roof of it. We're a block away. ... You know everybody on the plane must have died ... Never seen a jet fall out of the sky and into a building, no less once, but twice.
Last edited:
Oystein,
Look, the issue is not that important. It's teevee and therefore inherently inconclusive. You're relying on second-hand, anecdotal teevee broadcasts.
Here is an image compilation that shows that there is no way to confirm either what is live and what isn't, what source is relied on, let alone whether what is seen is part of the "military exercise" or not.
You are relying on a debunker video, Oystein. Debunkers are not sources of proof of what happened on 9/11. At most, debunker claims are simply a form of social disservice that seek to fill in the void left by the fact there is no valid or official determination of what happened on 9/11.
Look, I've already admitted that people post as best they can. Debunkers have made a valiant effort to try to support the common storyline. Your video source, containing an obviously confirmed discontinuation occurring roughly between 1:26 through 1:28 from one shot to another in a time segment that simply cannot be proven based on the video is amply demonstrated.
I do not care if you continue to claim it is 10:24. Fine. That is your claim. My claim is that you are relying on teevee, an inherently deceptive medium in the best of circumstances. Plus, you are relying on teevee for the purposes of making a point about 9/11, no less, a psyop that was based first and foremost on deception and the use of teevee to impart, implant and further the deception.
In a sense, all you are doing here is repeatiing the deception. And, that is the real harm done to us by debunkers. They collect, compile, repeat and then become emotionally attached to the deception.
That is the problem. That is what we have now succeeded in proving, Oystein. That is why the tipping point has been reached.
We know debunkers are dedicated to furtheriing the common storyline. We also know the common storyline has not ever been validly shown to have been true. Debunkers are neither a source nor a solution. Rather, their efforts are an attempt to fill the obvious void left by the fact that the common storyline has never been proven.
The common storyline is false. No Boeing 767s's hit the Twin Towers. Your poor excuse for proof consisting in a Fox News video snipet is not proof of anything EXCEPT deception.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
And, of course, any source that supports the generally accepted narrative of 9/11 is by definition a debunker source. And so, with this sweeping generalisation, the conspiracy theorist justifies rejecting all evidence that contradicts his theory, for no other reason than that it contradicts his theory.
This is not science. This is religion.
Dave
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I think Jammonius is the only one here who doesn't get this.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
You are disputing the time at which the North Tower collapsed. You're welcome to tell us when you believe the North Tower collapsed, and to provide evidence in support of your belief. Until you do, you're just asserting your religious beliefs.
I am so heartbroken by your uncertainty.
You use too many words, and are addressing your remarks to the wrong person. You should practice your speeches in front of a mirror.
Yes, I do believe you're doing the best you can, but:
Hey, earth to Dave, take it easy. You have constructed your own inappropriate construct of my post, taken it to a place that has nothing whatever to do with the content of my post, let alone its context, and you have then succeeded only in setting up an argument with yourself. Did the side that you preferred "win" the argument you constructed? Let's hope so.
What I can, however, say is that debunker sources are not a substitute for a nonexistent valid determination of what happened on 9/11. Few, if any, debunker sources even acknowledge the existence, for instance, of valid NO PLANE witnesses. Offhand, I know of no debunker source, website or otherwise, that acknowledges the existence of valid no plane witnesses.
Debunkers, then, by and large, are agenda-driven. It is their intent to substantiate the otherwise unsubstantiated common storyline of 9/11. Their agenda does not center on finding the truth of what happened on 9/11. That is why debunkers are propagandists.
This forum has a rather large section entitled 'Resources for Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.' It contains about 35 sources, of which only two are governmental: the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST FAQ segment. All else is just informal compilations done by debunkers.
That simply confirms that the common storyline of 9/11 has not ever been validly proven. The 9/11 Commission Report is obviously false, misleading, inept and incomplete. The NIST FAQ segment doesn't provide any determination at all, either in that segment or in the broader 10,000pg exercise in fraud.
So, there you have it: The common storyline of 9/11 hasn't been proven and is supported mostly by agenda-driven propaganda and incomplete, inept governmental reports, of which there are very few.
I do not know of any reference anywhere in a debunker site that attributes some validity to some aspect of either DEW proof or NO PLANE proof. That lack of balance confirms that debunkers engage in pure propaganda.
In a context where the common storyline is, itself, an implausible conspiracy theory, it is inappropriate not to acknowledge that there is some valid evidence showing the common storyline is false.
I, on the other hand, have often said there are valid PLANE SPOTTER witnessses. One of them id Daniel Nigro, who says he saw a plane hit the South Tower. Problem is, he was at the same place where both Chief Ganci and Asst. Commn. Gregroy, among others, were. Almost all witnesses at that location report neither seeing nor hearing what they thought was a plane. Nigro is the exception, not the rule.
Debunkers don't acknowledge that at all. That is why they do us all a disservice.
Last edited: