9/11 Conspirators - Naming Names, List included

[BenBurch]

...
Doesn't everyone know how difficult it is to defend against a suicide attacker? ...

Once a man has decided that his current attack is going to be his last, I would not want to be his target.

Look up the Kamikaze effort some day. They could hit US Naval targets even when there was such air superiority and overlapping AA zones that any conventional attack would be doomed to failure.

For another dip into that pool, look into the Kai-ten (Which translates into "changing the heavens" or "reversing the inevitable") which was a human-guided torpedo. Not as successful, but given the odds of any hit at the distance these were launched, impressive still.

 

[BenBurch]

An old phrase, comes to mind when I think of the Kamikaze effort; "If you can get a man to believe an absurdity, you can get him to commit an atrocity." Not sure of the provenance of the quote, but it fits.

 

[beachnut]

Spare yourself the embarrassment. You have no idea who I am or what I do. Your speculative stance and cheap debunking tricks spell desperation, not an effective defense of the official story.

You are one with no facts on 9/11 making up lies about Myers. We do know what you are and who you are. You are one with no facts to prove anything about 9/11 related to the claims of 9/11 truth. Zero stuff.

That is what and who you are, at least in respect to 9/11. You have exposed your lack of knowledge about the JCS. You act like Myers should walk around with a stinger missile system so he can shoot down an airliner hijacked by terrorist headed to the Pentagon.

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Spare yourself the embarrassment. You have no idea who I am or what I do. Your speculative stance and cheap debunking tricks spell desperation, not an effective defense of the official story.

you are a Red-coward.
You rather hide behind a computer and pointing fingers than doing something
in real life.
Most people are not afraid to show their faces when they make a claim.
but you red-coward, don't even have the guts to come out of your hiding hole.
That's my idea of who you are and what you do.
pure and simple.

 

[RedIbis]

you are a Red-coward.
You rather hide behind a computer and pointing fingers than doing something
in real life.
Most people are not afraid to show their faces when they make a claim.
but you red-coward, don't even have the guts to come out of your hiding hole.
That's my idea of who you are and what you do.
pure and simple.

You need to stop calling me names like a child. Merry Christmas.

 

[TheRedWorm]

And you, as a fellow red to another, really do need to take this more seriously. If I thought I had evidence that implicated the Govt. of the US in, at the very least, criminal negligence, the last thing I would do is post about it on internet message boards.

Merry Christmas to all.

 

[GT/CS]

you are a Red-coward.
You rather hide behind a computer and pointing fingers than doing something
in real life.
Most people are not afraid to show their faces when they make a claim.
but you red-coward, don't even have the guts to come out of your hiding hole.
That's my idea of who you are and what you do.
pure and simple.

Pretty accurate assessment. Just a troll. I found it's best to just place him on ignore, right next to Max.

 

[LashL]

I'm not a prosecutor, I don't have subpoena powers. I'm a citizen many miles away from DC. Let's not pretend like this is a court of law. It's a debate forum and I named an individual who I think deserves investigation, at the least.

Nice attempt at backpedaling, but you did not merely claim that General Myers "deserves investigation". You accused him of criminal offences. You accused him of "extreme criminal negligence, deriliction [sic] of duty, and worse complicity."


You have advocated that criminal charges be laid against Gen. Myers. And yet, when asked what facts and evidence you would utilize in support of your allegations, you ran away, refusing to provide any. (And when you eventually returned after being goaded into doing so, you still failed to provide any evidence, and instead resorted to backpedaling, and still did not provide any facts or evidence in support of your accusations of criminality.)

Don't you think that when you accuse someone of serious criminal offences, you should also consider reasonable standards of evidence, and maybe have some evidence to support your allegations?

If you are going to accuse a man of criminal offences - particularly when you implicate him in the deaths of thousands of people - you really have to accept that it is incumbent upon you to provide facts and evidence in support of your allegations, and you have to accept that the standard of evidence that applies is not the "I googled and then added 2 plus 2 and got eleventy" standard.



So, will you retract your accusations of criminal negligence against General Myers, or will you provide facts and evidence to support your accusations?

 

[RedIbis]

Nice attempt at backpedaling, but you did not merely claim that General Myers "deserves investigation". You accused him of criminal offences. You accused him of "extreme criminal negligence, deriliction [sic] of duty, and worse complicity."


You have advocated that criminal charges be laid against Gen. Myers. And yet, when asked what facts and evidence you would utilize in support of your allegations, you ran away, refusing to provide any. (And when you eventually returned after being goaded into doing so, you still failed to provide any evidence, and instead resorted to backpedaling, and still did not provide any facts or evidence in support of your accusations of criminality.)

Don't you think that when you accuse someone of serious criminal offences, you should also consider reasonable standards of evidence, and maybe have some evidence to support your allegations?

If you are going to accuse a man of criminal offences - particularly when you implicate him in the deaths of thousands of people - you really have to accept that it is incumbent upon you to provide facts and evidence in support of your allegations, and you have to accept that the standard of evidence that applies is not the "I googled and then added 2 plus 2 and got eleventy" standard.



So, will you retract your accusations of criminal negligence against General Myers, or will you provide facts and evidence to support your accusations?

How many times do we have to ride the carousel? I'm not going to keep rewording my position. Instead of fulfilling his responsibilities and advising the president at the precise moment that advice was most needed, he chose to stay in a meeting with a Democratic senator.

That's cool with you. It's not with me. If I thought that there was any accountability when it comes to 9/11, I'd expect the Commission or Congress to lead an investigation into Myers' lack of action. But I'm not that naieve.

 

[T.A.M.]

I just want to clarify, that this thread was not intended as a "trap" to get a truther to "confess" to who one of the conspirators is, and then proceed to gang jump them.

While I do not agree with RedIbis on the General Myers issue, I think he has been courageous (yes, compared to most of his comrades who post here) enough to name someone. Now Red, however, you must provide your evidence (which to a degree you say you have, others disagree) that links him to incompetence worthy of the label.

I also agree that to label a man of such honorable distinction in terms of his career and character, one has to have CONSIDERABLE evidence.

The main purpose of this thread was twofold (A) To "call out" the truth movement, who so flippantly throw around vague accusations, and (B) to hopefully gain insight into the motivation that pushes the truth movement. If we can gain from them the individuals they feel are guilty, then if nothing more perhaps we can understand a little better why they make the accusations.

Remember, people trash and bash G W Bush and Dick Cheney daily. Jon Stewart makes a career out of it. Why is it that Cheney is so easily ridiculed, with no repercussion? That is a political discussion, I know, but I bring it up to illustrate that commentary, even accusation, is common place in politics, and as acting Joint Chief of Staff, for a short time, Myers had crossed into the political arena.

So far Red is the only one to really step up to the plate.

A final note, before I get crucified here, myself, let me state for the record that I have only admiration for Gen. Myers, and nothing said here has changed that.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

How many times do we have to ride the carousel? I'm not going to keep rewording my position. Instead of fulfilling his responsibilities and advising the president at the precise moment that advice was most needed, he chose to stay in a meeting with a Democratic senator.

That's cool with you. It's not with me. If I thought that there was any accountability when it comes to 9/11, I'd expect the Commission or Congress to lead an investigation into Myers' lack of action. But I'm not that naieve.

So Red, do you have any evidence, beyond your own speculation, that Myers "willfully" ignored the situation? Do you feel he purposely did not act, and if so, do you think he did so, as part of a larger plot to "allow" 9/11 to occur? If so, who else do you feel was in on the plot, and why?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

I just want to clarify, that this thread was not intended as a "trap" to get a truther to "confess" to who one of the conspirators is, and then proceed to gang jump them.

While I do not agree with RedIbis on the General Myers issue, I think he has been courageous (yes, compared to most of his comrades who post here) enough to name someone. Now Red, however, you must provide your evidence (which to a degree you say you have, others disagree) that links him to incompetence worthy of the label.

I also agree that to label a man of such honorable distinction in terms of his career and character, one has to have CONSIDERABLE evidence.

The main purpose of this thread was twofold (A) To "call out" the truth movement, who so flippantly throw around vague accusations, and (B) to hopefully gain insight into the motivation that pushes the truth movement. If we can gain from them the individuals they feel are guilty, then if nothing more perhaps we can understand a little better why they make the accusations.

Remember, people trash and bash G W Bush and Dick Cheney daily. Jon Stewart makes a career out of it. Why is it that Cheney is so easily ridiculed, with no repercussion? That is a political discussion, I know, but I bring it up to illustrate that commentary, even accusation, is common place in politics, and as acting Joint Chief of Staff, for a short time, Myers had crossed into the political arena.

So far Red is the only one to really step up to the plate.

A final note, before I get crucified here, myself, let me state for the record that I have only admiration for Gen. Myers, and nothing said here has changed that.

TAM

TAM, as usual, your post is fair and friendly. One quick note, why is there absolutely no criticism of Myers? I've heard the response here that it wasn't his job to engage the military (I never said it was). Instead his main responsibility was to advise the commander in chief what military options and resource were available. He didn't do that during the duration of the attacks.

In your opinion don't you think Myers could have ended his meeting and dealt with this emergency?

 

[RedIbis]

So Red, do you have any evidence, beyond your own speculation, that Myers "willfully" ignored the situation? Do you feel he purposely did not act, and if so, do you think he did so, as part of a larger plot to "allow" 9/11 to occur? If so, who else do you feel was in on the plot, and why?

TAM

THese are good questions, but you are setting the trap. First you ask if I have any evidence, then you ask what I "think" and "feel."

I've stated what I think and feel but that allows others here to demand that I begin a criminal prosecution, which I'm not obviously qualified to do.

So do you want an informal discussion of why I think Myers neglected his duty and should face investigation?

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM, as usual, your post is fair and friendly. One quick note, why is there absolutely no criticism of Myers? I've heard the response here that it wasn't his job to engage the military (I never said it was). Instead his main responsibility was to advise the commander in chief what military options and resource were available. He didn't do that during the duration of the attacks.

In your opinion don't you think Myers could have ended his meeting and dealt with this emergency?

Of course he "could" have ended the meeting, but I am not about to speculate, as a Canadian Laymen, as to the "why" he did not, as I am not in any position to do so except from ignorance.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

THese are good questions, but you are setting the trap. First you ask if I have any evidence, then you ask what I "think" and "feel."

I've stated what I think and feel but that allows others here to demand that I begin a criminal prosecution, which I'm not obviously qualified to do.

So do you want an informal discussion of why I think Myers neglected his duty and should face investigation?

Not setting the trap, but merely trying to explore the "details" of the LIHOP theory you have, if you have one. I am still waiting for EVIDENCE beyond speculation on Myers. Now I want to know if you feel anyone beyond Myers was involved in a bigger plot to ALLOW 9/11 to occur, and if so, who and based on what.

It is a "who do you feel is in on it" followed by a "prove it, or admit it is just speculation" scenario.

If you believe it was purely incompetence, then say so, and back it up. If you believe there was a bigger conspiracy to ALLOW 9/11 to occur, then tell us who else and why.

If others choose to pounce on what you produce, I have done all I can through my earlier comments to advise against this.

TAM

 

[SDC]

Sorry to interrupt, but what does "informal" mean in this context? Wine, cheese, blue jeans, no grammatical or spelling nit-picks?

 

[RedIbis]

Not setting the trap, but merely trying to explore the "details" of the LIHOP theory you have, if you have one. I am still waiting for EVIDENCE beyond speculation on Myers. Now I want to know if you feel anyone beyond Myers was involved in a bigger plot to ALLOW 9/11 to occur, and if so, who and based on what.

It is a "who do you feel is in on it" followed by a "prove it, or admit it is just speculation" scenario.

If you believe it was purely incompetence, then say so, and back it up. If you believe there was a bigger conspiracy to ALLOW 9/11 to occur, then tell us who else and why.

If others choose to pounce on what you produce, I have done all I can through my earlier comments to advise against this.

TAM

TAM, I think you know as well as anyone that the best you can hope for on an internet forum is an informed discussion. The best I can do is call for an investigation of Myers' non-action. An unimpeded investigation will turn up whether he was ignorant, negligent, or complicit. One thing we know for a fact is that Myers went into the meeting just after the N. Tower is struck and stays there until the Pentagon is hit. In my humble opinion, and simply to participate in a discussion, I propose that this alone merits not the Presidential Medal of Freedom, but an investigation.

 

[RedIbis]

Sorry to interrupt, but what does "informal" mean in this context? Wine, cheese, blue jeans, no grammatical or spelling nit-picks?

Sure, I'll bring the Rioja and the Manchego, but I can't guarantee that the grammar and spelling errors will be ignored.

 

[JimBenArm]

TAM, I think you know as well as anyone that the best you can hope for on an internet forum is an informed discussion. The best I can do is call for an investigation of Myers' non-action. An unimpeded investigation will turn up whether he was ignorant, negligent, or complicit. One thing we know for a fact is that Myers went into the meeting just after the N. Tower is struck and stays there until the Pentagon is hit. In my humble opinion, and simply to participate in a discussion, I propose that this alone merits not the Presidential Medal of Freedom, but an investigation.

I think so, too. He should have leapt into action, slid down the JCS Bat-Pole, changed into his JCS crime-fighting tights, fired up the JCS Hummer-Mobile, and sped off! He totally missed the JCS Signal shining in the sky, and the fact he blew off the President to meet with some congressman is just horrific!
I think we should conviscate his utility belt and JCS-arangs immediately. Plus, give him a good tongue-lashing and kick his dog while we're at it. Maybe even make him stay on the Joint Chiefs for an extra term as an additional punishment. Can't think of much else that would be worse!

Meanwhile, The Riddler, posting as Red Ibis, is taunting our hero, by posting clues disguised as nonsense on an internet forum. Maybe we can decode the hidden meaning in them in time to thwart his nefarious scheme!

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM, I think you know as well as anyone that the best you can hope for on an internet forum is an informed discussion. The best I can do is call for an investigation of Myers' non-action. An unimpeded investigation will turn up whether he was ignorant, negligent, or complicit. One thing we know for a fact is that Myers went into the meeting just after the N. Tower is struck and stays there until the Pentagon is hit. In my humble opinion, and simply to participate in a discussion, I propose that this alone merits not the Presidential Medal of Freedom, but an investigation.

Not so...

I propose that if he was in the meeting and had no contact via cell phone or through relay of messages with the President, VP, or SOD, then perhaps one might have an argument that this was unusual.

To prove incompetence, let alone negligence or complicity would require additional proof that it was expected as part of his job to have left the meeting to advise higher ups IN PERSON, but did not. While you have your opinion on this matter, do you have statements from officials within stating that this is what he should have done?

For negligence you have to prove that he neglected to do what was reasonably expected of him, AND that this resulted in a preventable harm (which means you have to prove that Myers could have done something to prevent the harm).

Complicity, well you know what is involved to prove that.

----

Red, it boils down to this, IMO...

If you have beliefs that Myers acted incompetently, or even Negligently, then one has to hope that you have reasons beyond a dislike for the current administration, or a "hunch", that have led you to believe so. If not, then how can you expect anyone to take your opinions seriously.

TAM