New England 9/11 Truth Symposium

[pomeroo]

I don't take pains to sound reasonable when I phone you...I am reasonable. My position is simply that the investigations that we've had into 9/11 have not been adequate. You can spin what I have said all you want, however, Able Danger, the obvious cover up regarding the true identities of the alleged hijackers, the conflicts of interest within the 9/11 Commission, the Bush Administration's blatant refusal to cooperate with the inquiries that we've had into 9/11 have put me where I am. As far as I am concerned, if we are going to defend ourselves against this external threat, then we must know the truth about the day that created our present situation...and that is why I side with the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Sounds like a lot of hot air. Does that mean you'd debate Mark Roberts on 'Hardfire'? You can bring along a friend.

 

[pomeroo]

Sounds like a lot of hot air. Does that mean you'd debate Mark Roberts on 'Hardfire'? You can bring along a friend.

I thought I'd bump this to show why the fantasy movement will never go anywhere. A direct challenge and--poof! He's gone. They're always gone.

 

[PugsOnAPlane]

I thought I'd bump this to show why the fantasy movement will never go anywhere. A direct challenge and--poof! He's gone. They're always gone.

He never did explain exactly what he thought happened on 9/11. So me making remarks about his friend's weight is enough for a response, but that isn't...

 

[JAMartell]

I thought I'd bump this to show why the fantasy movement will never go anywhere. A direct challenge and--poof! He's gone. They're always gone.

Well what would you like to discuss/debate? Lately SLC and debunkers have been harping on no planers and CD and what happened at The Pentagon. When I asked you about the possibility of ISI involvement you said "Well, so what?" There are many areas that haven't been touched upon as much by both sides. How about the legitimacy of the commission? How does one debunk Philip Zelikow's clear conflicts of interest? Does that question warrant a trip to NYC to appear on your show? Maybe we could do a call in sometime perhaps?

 

[JAMartell]

He never did explain exactly what he thought happened on 9/11. So me making remarks about his friend's weight is enough for a response, but that isn't...

What happened on 9/11 exactly? That is something a real investigation would answer.

 

[gc051360]

What happened on 9/11 exactly? That is something a real investigation would answer.

But there was an investigation.

Where do you disagree with the findings?

 

[DGM]

What happened on 9/11 exactly? That is something a real investigation would answer.

You only know that the accepted version is wrong but you have no alternative?

 

[JAMartell]

You only know that the accepted version is wrong but you have no alternative?

Well coming from the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Zelikow- they're lying about something. See The Iraq War

 

[pomeroo]

Well coming from the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Zelikow- they're lying about something. See The Iraq War

Yet, you are incapable of pointing to a single unambiguous "lie."

How about that debate?

 

[gc051360]

Well coming from the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Zelikow- they're lying about something. See The Iraq War

That's all you've got? Seriously?

You want an entire new investigation, based on a hunch you have?

You won't even tell us what you think the original investigation got wrong?

 

[DGM]

Well coming from the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Zelikow- they're lying about something. See The Iraq War

They didn't give us the narrative. Thousands of people worked on it. They're all liars I suppose. Good luck with that.

 

[pomeroo]

What happened on 9/11 exactly? That is something a real investigation would answer.

Nineteen jihadists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. A massive, multi-agency investigation including 7,000 agents from the FBI alone provided the answers. You reject those answers because they are inconvenient to your fantasy. You have nothing whatever to support the myths you cherish.

 

[JAMartell]

But there was an investigation.

Where do you disagree with the findings?

The Commission was tasked with providing a full and complete accounting, and now we're told by people like Lee Hamilton that they were tasked with "telling the story"... is that why they hired a self described expert at creating "public myths?" To create a story?
That the Commission was not given access to all of the information it needed to perform a thorough investigation. That the Commission was not tasked with holding anyone accountable for anything, including perjury. The alternative is that the intelligence apparatus' of several different countries either protected, directed, or helped those we were told were the hijackers. That the day, target, and type of attacks were known by those in positions of power. That the testimony gotten from KSM was gotten through torture, which discredits what he said. That money used in the attacks may be connected to those in D.C. Those are fine though, and don't compromise the fine work those Washington insiders did.

 

[pomeroo]

Well what would you like to discuss/debate? Lately SLC and debunkers have been harping on no planers and CD and what happened at The Pentagon. When I asked you about the possibility of ISI involvement you said "Well, so what?" There are many areas that haven't been touched upon as much by both sides. How about the legitimacy of the commission? How does one debunk Philip Zelikow's clear conflicts of interest? Does that question warrant a trip to NYC to appear on your show? Maybe we could do a call in sometime perhaps?

Why waste time? You haven't a clue about the ISI's involvement with al Qaeda. In any case, it has no relevance to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy posited by fantasists. The 9/11 Commission sought to establish an accurate timeline and answer specific questions raised by victims' families. Necessarily, it was politicized, with the Republicans seeking to exonerate Bush and blame Clinton, while the Democrats were attempting the opposite. So what? The real investigation gave us the answers.

 

[gc051360]

The Commission was tasked with providing a full and complete accounting, and now we're told by people like Lee Hamilton that they were tasked with "telling the story"... is that why they hired a self described expert at creating "public myths?" To create a story?
That the Commission was not given access to all of the information it needed to perform a thorough investigation. That the Commission was not tasked with holding anyone accountable for anything, including perjury. The alternative is that the intelligence apparatus' of several different countries either protected, directed, or helped those we were told were the hijackers. That the day, target, and type of attacks were known by those in positions of power. That the testimony gotten from KSM was gotten through torture, which discredits what he said. That money used in the attacks may be connected to those in D.C. Those are fine though, and don't compromise the fine work those Washington insiders did.

So you want a new commission, not a new investigation?

 

[pomeroo]

The Commission was tasked with providing a full and complete accounting, and now we're told by people like Lee Hamilton that they were tasked with "telling the story"... is that why they hired a self described expert at creating "public myths?" To create a story?
That the Commission was not given access to all of the information it needed to perform a thorough investigation. That the Commission was not tasked with holding anyone accountable for anything, including perjury. The alternative is that the intelligence apparatus' of several different countries either protected, directed, or helped those we were told were the hijackers. That the day, target, and type of attacks were known by those in positions of power. That the testimony gotten from KSM was gotten through torture, which discredits what he said. That money used in the attacks may be connected to those in D.C. Those are fine though, and don't compromise the fine work those Washington insiders did.

Stop lying. There are adults here. KSM's account of his planning activities for al Qaeda antedates his capture--AS YOU KNOW.

 

[l0k0]

That money used in the attacks may be connected to those in D.C.

Care to explain that one?

 

[bje]

Care to explain that one?

Justin makes it clear as a bell, as he always has done, that he is incapable of addressing any rational question.

 

[JAMartell]

Do not change member names in an attempt to insult them.

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

Pugsonaplane, stop hiding behind an internet forum and respond directly to my challenge. I love it, I come on here, and this guy is simply making snide comments about Mike Jackman's weight, I directly challenge him, he says nothing, and no one says anything. However, when someone challenges me, and it takes me a bit to respond, because contrary to your delusions I have life outside of this, you're all up in arms. It's obnoxious.

As for you, Ron, I believe I OFFERED to appear on Hardfire several times. You, of course, have left that information out because you are a...how would you say it?...Disingenuous charlatan? Oh, that's right. Send me an email so I can respond quickly, instead of trying to bait me here in order to feed your delusions of grandeur regarding your silly public access show.

Anyway, I'm in talks with Dan K. Stanley about doing a podcast debate. So ask him for updates on that. I'm done on here for now and I'll be back to respond to juvenille comments about my weight after I do the podcast with Dan.

 

[chillzero]

JAMartell - (not as a moderator), I would like to suggest that you get over the one single throwaway comment that was made about someone else, and focus on the topic of the thread instead. It's not helping matters.