revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What's the point? They're going to lose in court and you're just going to say that their judgment was affected by corporate greed and American shame.

Just like your KSM trial and your NIST report, you are happy for a result to be written before it actually happens.

Rhys. If this goes to court and your Truther friends lose then will that settle it for you?

Of course not. Like he said, then it'd just be another KSM trial, a pre-decided verdict produced by just another gov't stooge courtroom.

There is no 'lose' situation for the truthers. Ever.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

The report was written before 9-11-01 ???

Explain how you come to such an absurd conclusion, your inability to fathom information is astounding!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The report was written before 9-11-01 ???

Explain how you come to such an absurd conclusion, your inability to fathom information is astounding!

"Just like your KSM trial and your NIST report, you are happy for a result to be written before it actually happens."

Looks more like the problem is your inability to convey information.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

Quote

Of course not. Like he said, then it'd just be another KSM trial, a pre-decided verdict produced by just another gov't stooge courtroom.

It is not pre-decided. It has not been to court yet, and there has been no end of fucking around in doing so.

The trials ‘were’ announced to be held in public at a civilian court, the amount of opposition to this procedure has been outstanding and considering how 'sure' the 'officials' and you 'backers' are that he and his Al Qaeda pals are at fault.

Why the opposition, if it is so black and white?

He has to stand trial and he has the right to say what he pleases. No matter how much torture he has been through to admit fault, there is nothing to say he will be co-operative during an open public trial.

This is why all the deniers want the trials in a military court, because the naughty little signatures that have been signed by the tyrants that are responsible, allow them to lie and deceive without accountability.

It is not so easy to make this type legislation in a civilian environment due to the public opposition and therefore the trials in civilian would undoubtedly expose the fable that is the official 9/11 myth.

Quote

There is no 'lose' situation for the truthers. Ever.

I would say we lost the last decade, but this or the next is a sure thing. The people that will soon be adults, that were not alive or impressionable at the time will study it, and draw their own conclusions. Deception by propaganda will not be nearly as effective to that generation in that particular subject; they will have concise and complete information available when they initially study it.

How taboo the subject now is to discuss in public makes it all the more intriguing. This will therefore attract the attention of inquisitive youngsters that have no allegiance with any side of the story.

The internet may be filtered in the future but all the information is stored in so many storage devices that it will never be lost.

You can't just burn down the library anymore...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

"Just like your KSM trial and your NIST report, you are happy for a result to be written before it actually happens."

Looks more like the problem is your inability to convey information.

You realise 'it' refers to the 'result of the trial' and not the incident in which the trial is scrutinising don't you?

Obviously not.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

watch this video if you understand aircraft or are interested in them, it explains clearly that the information given pertaining to the events of that fateful day ire in fact incorrect.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"Just like your KSM trial and your NIST report, you are happy for a result to be written before it actually happens."

Looks more like the problem is your inability to convey information.

You realise 'it' refers to the 'result of the trial' and not the incident in which the trial is scrutinising don't you?

Obviously not.

"and your NIST report"

Nice try, but keep digging - I'm sure you can throw enough sand in the air to cover your ass if you keep it up.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

read here. use the links for further investigation.

Quote

Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney.

In the message, the officials denied the bipartisan commission's request to question terrorist detainees, informing its two senior-most members that doing so would "cross" a "line" and obstruct the administration's ability to protect the nation.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

The trials ‘were’ announced to be held in public at a civilian court, the amount of opposition to this procedure has been outstanding and considering how 'sure' the 'officials' and you 'backers' are that he and his Al Qaeda pals are at fault.

The opposition to the trial is mostly an ideological question over whether or not 'enemy combatants' deserve the rights and protections of law. Opposition to, and support for the trial has nothing to do with whether people think 9/11 was an inside job, but whether people think rights should apply to accused terrorists.

Quote

Why the opposition, if it is so black and white?

Why the opposition to trials for low level insurgents and other random people incarcerated in Gitmo? Including mostly people who have no knowledge of high level AQ planning and people who've never even been in AQ. Opposition or support to their trials is divided on the ideological question over whether accused terrorists deserve rights, not between who do and don't believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Quote

This is why all the deniers want the trials in a military court, because the naughty little signatures that have been signed by the tyrants that are responsible, allow them to lie and deceive without accountability.

All the deniers? Now you're just making shit up again.

Opposition or support for trials for people like KSM, and opposition or support for holding Military Tribunals vs civil trials is split on idealogical lines over what rights should be afforded to accused terrorists, it has nothing to do with whether people think 9/11 was an inside job.

Quote

I would say we lost the last decade, but this or the next is a sure thing.

Exactly my point. To any independent observer your theories have failed every single test they've been subjected to, and you have made no progress in having your theories accepted by any official or important body.... and yet success is still just around the corner.

There is no 'lose' situation for you guys.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Just like your KSM trial and your NIST report, you are happy for a result to be written before it actually happens."

Looks more like the problem is your inability to convey information.

You realise 'it' refers to the 'result of the trial' and not the incident in which the trial is scrutinising don't you?

Obviously not.

"and your NIST report"

Nice try, but keep digging - I'm sure you can throw enough sand in the air to cover your ass if you keep it up.

He keeps digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole with that sand he's trying to cover his ass with.
Quite amusing to watch.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

I would say we lost the last decade, but this or the next is a sure thing.

Exactly my point. To any independent observer your theories have failed every single test they've been subjected to, and you have made no progress in having your theories accepted by any official or important body.... and yet success is still just around the corner.

There is no 'lose' situation for you guys.

That is possibly the funniest thing he has ever written.

"but this or the next thing is a sure thing"

If "this or the next thing" doesn't give you the outcome you are looking for, will it be the next thing, or the next thing, or the next thing or.........and on and on.

In twenty years the Discovery channel will have a show about the 9/11 conspiracy that will be aired right after the show about the JFK assassination conspiracy.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I would say we lost the last decade, but this or the next is a sure thing.

Exactly my point. To any independent observer your theories have failed every single test they've been subjected to, and you have made no progress in having your theories accepted by any official or important body.... and yet success is still just around the corner.

There is no 'lose' situation for you guys.

That is possibly the funniest thing he has ever written.

"but this or the next thing is a sure thing"

If "this or the next thing" doesn't give you the outcome you are looking for, will it be the next thing, or the next thing, or the next thing or.........and on and on.

In twenty years the Discovery channel will have a show about the 9/11 conspiracy that will be aired right after the show about the JFK assassination conspiracy.

That is a very real possibility. I would say the gist of it would be to compare the CT's similarities, of how they keep putting forth the same arguments over and over even though they have been disproved beyond any doubt. Case in point: JFK CT's love to put up the argument that it was impossible for Oswald to have fired three shots on target in the time span allowed. FACT: Tests were done by a major broadcast company in the 60's that showed any average person could pass the test with minimal practice. CT's ignore the fact that Oswalds first shot missed entirely, his second was poorly placed ( if he was trying for a head shot), and his third barely hit the target.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[DJL 235]

Rhys. If this goes to a legal court of your choosing will the conclusion satisy you?

How much money have you contributed to this? Like I said, I'd be happy to contribute to the legal fund with $50. I'm also betting that you can't produce any receipt or proof that you've contributed any money even though you're so passionate about the truth.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Rhys. If this goes to a legal court of your choosing will the conclusion satisy you?

That is funny!

You owe me a coffee and a keyboard.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[DJL 235]

Quote

Quote

Rhys. If this goes to a legal court of your choosing will the conclusion satisy you?

That is funny!

You owe me a coffee and a keyboard.

What's making me laugh is the metaphorical short-circuit going on in his brain as the wires get crossed between his America Hate and his knowledge that this Truther stuff is a crock of shit.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

watch this video if you understand aircraft or are interested in them, it explains clearly that the information given pertaining to the events of that fateful day ire in fact incorrect.

Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bullshit before.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

watch this video if you understand aircraft or are interested in them, it explains clearly that the information given pertaining to the events of that fateful day ire in fact incorrect.

I suspect the typical airliner isn't equipped to properly measure such high airspeeds as reported.

I suspect the Egyptair flight may also have been pulling up at the time of its breakup, making the conclusion about when a 767 will break-up invalid.

So, the NTSB may be incompetent in claiming the speeds they have, so what? Does that surprise anyone?

Why didn't the producers do a speed analysis based on video evidence? I'll tell you why, because it doesn't support their conspiracy theory. You truthers do video based speed analysis of the building collapses, why not the airplanes?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why didn't the producers do a speed analysis based on video evidence? I'll tell you why, because it doesn't support their conspiracy theory. You truthers do video based speed analysis of the building collapses, why not the airplanes?

since Rhys can't even answer the question of how fast the building fell, or should have (he says "freefall" without ever defining with units like G or mph), I don't even think they did the analysis for the buildings.

"It looks fast" isn't analysis.

[rhys 0]

Quote

...Exactly my point. To any independent observer your theories have failed every single test they've been subjected to, and you have made no progress in having your theories accepted by any official or important body.... and yet success is still just around the corner.

Every? are you serious.

Watch for AE911truth television slots, increased MSM ridicule and firther discussion between your mated of how rediculous our thought are, as you will notice, your team is now on the defensive.

Ignoring important questions is complicity and the longer this continues the more the truth movement will continue to grow.

If you believe that because a questionis ignored it it not valid, then you really do not understand the extent of what this all implies.

There are very powerful people doing very corrupt and immoral things, they have done for centuries. These type of activities have had to be increasingly more subtle with world communications going the way they are.

Your buddies crossed the line with 9/11, they have crossed the line many times before, but with 9/11 they did it on home turf and on an exponential scale.

The whole thing is out of hand now and the full results have yet to be seen. They ignored the magnatude of the internet, and they should have filtered it decade ago if they wanted to get away with it, it is too late now.

You think this argument will always be as it has....

The emotion has worn off now and people are more open to discussion.

You ignore the momentum of the truth movement so you ignore its potential.

So you are right it is a win, win stuation for us, as there is, and will ever only be, one truth!

Continue as you were!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Why hide the truth?

Quote

The panel [i.e. the 9/11 Commission] also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission's chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to "intimidation" of the witnesses.
***

[9/11 Commission co-chairs] Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton suggested that the Justice Department was behind a directive barring intelligence officials from being interviewed by the panel without the presence of agency colleagues.

At a news conference, Mr. Kean described the presence of "minders" at the interviews as a form of intimidation. "I think the commission feels unanimously that it's some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency," he said. "You might get less testimony than you would."

"We would rather interview these people without minders or without agency people there," he said.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Watch for AE911truth television slots, increased MSM ridicule and firther discussion between your mated of how rediculous our thought are, as you will notice, your team is now on the defensive.

Yeah, right... y'all have us on the ropes.

Quote

Ignoring important questions is complicity and the longer this continues the more the truth movement will continue to grow.

Is that why you keep ignoring the questions about where the explosives came from, how they were planted, etc etc etc?

Quote

If you believe that because a questionis ignored it it not valid,

That seems to be your M.O., yes.

Quote

then you really do not understand the extent of what this all implies.

That a couple nutjobs found a way to get attention and sell DVDs?

Quote

Your buddies crossed the line with 9/11, they have crossed the line many times before, but with 9/11 they did it on home turf and on an exponential scale.

Yeah, ok...

Quote

The whole thing is out of hand now and the full results have yet to be seen. They ignored the magnatude of the internet, and they should have filtered it decade ago if they wanted to get away with it, it is too late now.

AND, we're back to the question of "if the gov't *DID* do it, why didn't they kill the 'loose screw' crowd, too?"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

Quote

since Rhys can't even answer the question of how fast the building fell, or should have (he says "freefall" without ever defining with units like G or mph), I don't even think they did the analysis for the buildings.

"It looks fast" isn't analysis.

Actually there is no (publicly available) way of determining the complete time of the entire collapse of any of the buildings due the the view of the events being obsured in all available footage.

It is however possible to determine how long it took for the section of the building from the 29th floor upwards.

The interesting thing about this data, is that it is one of the few things (the) NIST and the truth movement are in agreeance with.

The building accelerated for 2.5 seconds at the rate of gravity (in New York).

it is clearly pointed out in This Presentation . I have posted it before and you have chosen to ignore it.

Since you made such bold conclusions on my constraint in answering your question, I felt I should clarify that for you.

The implications of a freefalling building, as much as Bill and Belgium guy try to counterclaim, implies a much greater force than simple office fires.

That is truth that cannot be refuted. It can be ignored, as it has for years now, but neither you, Bill, whats his name, NIST or any of those other imbeciles can refute basic physics.

It is possible to cloud the truth with namecalling and move the conversation away from reality with insane analogies like a mad professor. In reality the truth sits there in front of you and it is only ego and emotion that inhibits your acceptance.

Acceptance can be tough, we humans have found. Without it, we are fucked, due to our greedy and selfish nature!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

"Actually there is no (publicly available) way of determining the complete time of the entire collapse of any of the buildings due the the view of the events being obsured in all available footage."

Yet you and the truthers use the timeline of the collapse as some sort of evidence.

"It is however possible to determine how long it took for the section of the building from the 29th floor upwards. The interesting thing about this data, is that it is one of the few things (the) NIST and the truth movement are in agreeance with."

So then why do you argue with everything else in the report? If they can get one thing right, surely there are other items. You can't pick-and-choose the truth.

"The building accelerated for 2.5 seconds at the rate of gravity (in New York). "

I'd like to see you prove that. I sincerely doubt you have the understanding of physics to perform those calculations.
To go with that, just how fast do you think it should have fallen?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 3,107]

>The implications of a freefalling building, as much as Bill and Belgium
>guy try to counterclaim, implies a much greater force than simple office
>fires.

Office fires have no "force" beyond the rapid expansion of heated air they produce. They are simply destructive.

Tell me, how fast does a building fall when you take away its supports? See if you can use logic for a moment.

>That is truth that cannot be refuted.

Indeed, basic physics cannot be - but it doesn't seem like you understand it.

>Without it, we are fucked, due to our greedy and selfish nature!

Yep. Of course, I'm not the one risking my students to make a little extra cash. In that case, it's your students who are fucked.

[rhys 0]

Quote

"Actually there is no (publicly available) way of determining the complete time of the entire collapse of any of the buildings due the the view of the events being obsured in all available footage."

Yet you and the truthers use the timeline of the collapse as some sort of evidence.

"It is however possible to determine how long it took for the section of the building from the 29th floor upwards. The interesting thing about this data, is that it is one of the few things (the) NIST and the truth movement are in agreeance with."

So then why do you argue with everything else in the report? If they can get one thing right, surely there are other items. You can't pick-and-choose the truth.

"The building accelerated for 2.5 seconds at the rate of gravity (in New York). "

I'd like to see you prove that. I sincerely doubt you have the understanding of physics to perform those calculations.
To go with that, just how fast do you think it should have fallen?

I am certain you re not that stupid, yet your questions reak of evidence you do not understand what it is you are arguing about?

One would think you'd realise the 2.5 second thing is written in the NIST's final draft, we have been through this and you have failed, time and time again, to understand what is being said. You obsure the information with bullshit about how it is all been debunked, but you cannot follow your rants up with evidence and it appears you simply do not get it!

Your government story 'now' (since november 2008) claims freefall acceleration for a perid of 2.5 seconds and that was being as conservative as physically possible due to the evidence that is openly avaialble.

For years NIST denied freefall, as you did, but now that they admit it you still fail to acknowledge it.



Now you are running your own hypothesis, maybe you can latch onto Bills bridge and walkway argument and get your own conspiracy theroy happening.

what a fucking joke!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix