"Do the orders still stand?" - Person identified

[LashL]

Discussion about the Norman Mineta timeline has been moved to a previous thread dealing with that subject matter here.

Posted By: LashL

 

[jammonius]

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?

Yes, you are quite correct that Cochrane stands on the 9/11 Commission Report. And, therein lies the food for thought.

I don't think there is any poster who would frequent this thread, and very few lurkers who do the same, that do not know, full well, that the 9/11 Commission Report has been almost thoroughly discredited, disowned, disavowed and "dissed" in so many ways that one would run out of "dis" words before doing justice to how thoroughly "dissed" the 9/11 Commssion Report has been dissed.

So, best I call do is to call it the DIS-9/11 Report.

Cochrane must be presumed to know as well as any other intelligent, cogent person on planet earth that the DIS-9/11 Report is NOT an authoritative account of the events of 9/11 and is, instead, the opposite; namely, an aspect of the 9/11 coverup.

Texas, I do not understand why you would leave yourself vulnerable to a refutation of this nature.

Your post as quoted above, assumes an almost total ignorance of the way in which the DIS-9/11 Report is regarded.

So, instead of acknowledging that Cochrane's response is a complete dodge and therefore likely an admission that he is withholding information, you chose to go down the path of least resistance and merely say Cochrane relied on something that is, in reality, a nonentity.

You have to do better than that.

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

Cochrane was revealing and helpful. I think he may be on the verge of becoming a true whistleblower. IMHO, his reponses reveal a person who knows something that he'd like to disclose if he could only figure out how to do it so without risk of personal harm.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So, instead of acknowledging that Cochrane's response is a complete dodge and therefore likely an admission that he is withholding information.

So when you dodge questions it means you are withholding information? Here I was just thinking you didn't have a clue and didn't know the answers. All along you knew the answers and were merely withholding them from us! Who knew????

 

[ProBonoShill]

Well, I do. Now we can see that this guy wasn't some brain-dead automaton who would simply accept orders to help murder thousands of his countrymen. He's a real guy, who really dealt with a really bad situation, and even after all that, can still remain civil whist being hounded by a clearly insane person.

So that's nice to know.

Yes Horatius that is true.

My sense though, is that truthers think by revealing his identity they've found another piece to fit into their bizarre puzzle, when in reality it means nothing and nobody really cares.

 

[Horatius]

Yes Horatius that is true.

My sense though, is that truthers think by revealing his identity they've found another piece to fit into their bizarre puzzle, when in reality it means nothing and nobody really cares.

Well, yes, but if that were enough to make us ignore something they say, we'd be ignoring everything!

 

[jammonius]

Well, yes, but if that were enough to make us ignore something they say, we'd be ignoring everything!

Hmmm, Horatius,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding of your post. It would appear that you laud the process of ignorance for purposes of adherence in belief in the common storyline of 9/11. I hope that is not the message you intended to convey, let alone an accurate reflection of your process in dealing with 9/11.

all the best

 

[BigAl]

Hmmm, Horatius,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding of your post. It would appear that you laud the process of ignorance for purposes of adherence in belief in the common storyline of 9/11. I hope that is not the message you intended to convey, let alone an accurate reflection of your process in dealing with 9/11.

all the best

word salad.

 

[Horatius]

Hmmm, Horatius,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding of your post. It would appear that you laud the process of ignorance for purposes of adherence in belief in the common storyline of 9/11. I hope that is not the message you intended to convey, let alone an accurate reflection of your process in dealing with 9/11.

all the best

No, I was implying that you had never found anything of any meaning.

 

[Lyrandar]

There's no reason for why he should be so angry in the first place -- consider that everything he knows about Jeff Hill at that point (presumably) is:
a) He's seen some stuff on the Internet.
b) He's got some questions based on said Internet stuff.

If someone like that gave me a call and I had nothing to hide, I wouldn't have played my cards like that. Would you have?

I don't have anything to hide about how my organization conducts affairs, but I'd still refer queries of this type to the public affairs department. It's best for an organization to speak with one voice to avoid creating mistaken perceptions, particularly the US government. Cochrane knows this; it's part of US Navy policy when dealing with anything which might be posted for public consumption. Hence why he refused to give any answer to those questions.

Clear that they have an agenda? How is wanting to know about a controversial issue surrounding the 9/11 attacks evidence of "having an agenda"?

The way he phrased his question and the fact that he feels more information about 9/11 is necessary would have made me suspicious that he had a point to prove. Repeatedly asking the same questions after getting an answer he dislikes is clear evidence that he's got an axe to grind.

 

[Tricky]

Two key words/phrases. On-topic. Civil. Stick to those and your posts will not end up in AAH like several others here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Thunder]

Yes!! The orders still stand!!

9-11 was not an inside job.

 

[BCR]

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

Well, I can't speak for debunkers, only for myself. But no, I'm not intrigued at all.

 

[jammonius]

Well, I can't speak for debunkers, only for myself. But no, I'm not intrigued at all.

Am I to understand that you also do not question any aspect of the common storyline of 9/11, never have and never will?

 

[beachnut]

Am I to understand that you also do not question any aspect of the common storyline of 9/11, never have and never will?

BCR is the only real truther in the world. He debunks your delusions without posting! lol

How hard is it to debunk your delusions Plymouth Wheel-covers are jet engine parts. He is right, this topic means nothing and you have no input.

The orders still stand scenario of 911 truth makes no senses, when I hear the "orders" delusion I know the person spewing the nonsense has no capability to understand reality, or express what the "orders" nonsense means in their fantasy version of 911. Like Judy Wood and her idiotic Beam Weapon, the "orders still stand" junk exposes the poster as a fraud and unable to comprehend the events of 911. And you posted nothing to help the failed "orders" scam by 911 truth. You can't explain it, you don't know what it means, and you turning off topic.

 

[Obviousman]

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.

As an active, serving Officer, I can concur. Even the most innocuous comments, just trying to be helpful whilst directing them to the proper spokepeople, can be turned into an adverse comment.

We have a Defence Instruction telling us we are not to comment at all to the media, as Defence members, unless clear to do so. "No comment; please direct your enquiry to Defence media relations" (or something like that) is the correct response. Speaking as a private citizen is one thing; speaking as a member of the Defence Forces is a totally different situation.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Glad to see someone stand up to the Canadian nut job like that.

He got the answer he deserved.

A brass-knuckled shot in the teeth is generally not deliverable via phone lines.

 

[jammonius]

Glad to see someone stand up to the Canadian nut job like that.

He got the answer he deserved.

The above post fails to recognize the substance of the interview. It actually resulted in some significant clues that the military exercises carried out on 9/11 were, in fact, the means by which the events of 9/11 were accomplished.

The interview is an important piece of evidence, of historical signficance. We are much indebted to Jeff Hill for getting that interview.

 

[fess]

The above post fails to recognize the substance of the interview. It actually resulted in some significant clues that the military exercises carried out on 9/11 were, in fact, the means by which the events of 9/11 were accomplished.

That, and I put it mildly, is total bunk without any proof whatsoever. The military exercise of that day had nothing to do with 911.

The interview is an important piece of evidence, of historical signficance. We are much indebted to Jeff Hill for getting that interview.

You may be indebted to Jeff Hill, but I certainly refuse to align myself with a lying cheat who will stoop to any level to try and trap someone.

 

[Jackanory]

The above post fails to recognize the substance of the interview. It actually resulted in some significant clues that the military exercises carried out on 9/11 were, in fact, the means by which the events of 9/11 were accomplished.

The interview is an important piece of evidence, of historical signficance. We are much indebted to Jeff Hill for getting that interview.

'Interview'??? What interview? Do crank calls by crackpots constitute an 'interview' in your book?

I get cold called or knocks at the door by crackpots most weeks trying to sell me double glazing or trying to convert me into a Jehova Witness. After the first few calls/knocks its a pleasant and polite 'NO THANKS'. After the 4th call is a polite 'Stop Calling Me Please I'm not interested'. After the unteenth time the politeness is out the window. I guess that Chochrane has had it the unteenth time but has to remain civil and polite in public. I can only imagine what he was saying and thinking once the call ended.

Had he just hung up without saying a word then I am sure you would have him hanged for that too. By not saying anything he would have incriminating evidence in your deluded mind. You were much more interesting discussing Plymouth hubcaps ya fruitcake.

 

[rsalinger]

"I don't have anything else to add" usually means just that. The man has nothing to add beyond what's in the 9/11 Commission Report. That's what he says. If you can accurately prise nuanced meanings out of simple statements, please explain how you do it.