Recently Ronald Wieck was kind enough to take the time and discuss some 9/11 related issues with me. I reached out to Ron because I notice that debunkers and conspiracy theorists have something in common.
They spend endless amounts of time talking about irrelevant issues, while ignoring the facts at hand.
..
I would really appreciate some feedback from people about what Ron and I discussed.
Thanks for your time!
Very interesting conversation, thanks for sharing. I am concerned however that you hold some extreme viewpoints regarding certain subjects, especially considering that the details are murky at best. I would caution you to take a less strident tone, since you're doing a lot of speculating when it comes to the so-called 'Stand Down order' for example. But even your first paragraph (quoted above) contains an unnecessary and inaccurate (IMO) attack on 'debunkers'.
Dealing with that erroneous claim of yours, where you allege debunkers ignore the 'facts at hand' and discuss irrelevant issues: I would challenge you to back up that allegation with some facts yourself, or you set yourself up as a terrible hypocrite right away.
Seems to me the responses to your OP shred this allegation, as the facts are discussed and debated in detail. The question of relevance is a judgement call and since you haven't presented much context for this allegation, it is...how shall I say... irrelevant?
Perhaps it would be better to avoid the insults and confrontation and instead just make a cogent argument for the issues you think are important.
I agree with you and others that the 28 redacted pages could be relevant to a discussion of possible coverups by the Bush administration. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that Bush's relationship with the Saudis was (and still is) a potential cause of great embarrassment to him, and it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to think that efforts were made to hide some of the facts. I would not be at all surprised to find that there were abuses of executive power in that effort - I think this kind of thing happens all too often, here in Canada as well as elsewhere. I don't think it's unique to Bush and Co. or 9/11.
As to the 'Stand Down Order', the documentary record is confusing and spotty. Frankly I don't think you've helped by writing:
'What they do is desert their posts and leave the VP in charge. This is not just a disgrace, it is in fact- the stand down.'
This, IMO is highly inflammatory, and fuels the notion that there was a stand down, even if it was de-facto - but this itself is a confusing idea. RU arguing that this was a deliberate plot? As I read on, the answer is an unequivocal 'YES'.
Personally my take is that it smacks more of executive confusion and incompetence more than anything else, but I'm not claiming to have read every transcript and detail.
Just be careful not to feed the conspiracy theories by your own rhetoric. God knows there are already far too many of them.
You make the declaration:
'The VP is not in the military chain of command and has no authority to issue shoot down orders. Not only that the Generals in charge know it due to the exercises that drilled that fact into their heads. So any shoot down orders he gives are not acted on. He does not have the authority any more than the Postmaster General does.'
The last part is hyperbole, as certainly the VP has a lot more clout in a national emergency than the Postmaster General. I wince to see you make that argument, even as a rhetorical gesture.
Really the only thing you have uncovered is that the NCA did not respond with a shoot down order while the initial attacks were taking place; this was done only later, by your account. You have not shown that this was any kind of deliberate stalling, you only speculate and jump to conclusions. Again you add to the confusion by writing on one hand 'Whether by incredible incompetence or by design this is what happened in their own words and official investigations.' , allowing (as you should!) that their actions in the early hours of the attack are not necessarily evidence of any conspiracy, but could be mere confusion/incompetence.
But then you ratchet the rhetoric up and declare that not only had Bush 'deserted his post' but you accuse them of conspiracy directly!!! Yet you have no evidence of a conspiracy to avoid ordering a shoot down! You can only infer it indirectly, but that involves interpreting ambiguous actions. You know this, yet you seem bent on constructing a conspiracy out of it. How is this different from typical 9/11 conspiracy theories???
'He has deserted his post. He does have a conversation with his deserting co conspirator Rumsfeld'
I get that you're fishing for a conspiracy, but I don't think you've found one in the 'stand down/shoot down' area. IMO you're just reaching. You probably have a better argument in the Bush/Saudi relationship, and I personally hope that more information about it becomes public.
ps have you considered making a footnoted pdf or doc of your investigations? It might make for better reading than the format of your post #11, which I found very awkward to scan. Perhaps you could organize and summarize your findings in a more succinct format.
