Any Informed Defenders of the 9E OCT on USMB?

[CurveLight]

another absurd leap in logic made by a twoofer.

everything that was "made public" must previously be HIDDEN.

it cant just be that the 12,000 pages of oral histories were gathered together and released together.


noooooooooooooo.....

it has to be HIDDEN in order for it to be made public!!

They were hidden because the NYT had to file a FOIA suit against New York and fought for over 3 years to get them released:

"The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."

So why do you think they were "hidden"?

This is at least the fifth time you have avoided the question. I jumped through your hoops by providing the testimonies and proving NY kept them hidden from the public and it took over three years of court battles for the NYT to get them made public. Even then not all were released. I've been keeping my word. I can't make you keep your word but I can prevent wasting any more of my time if you dodge the question again.

 

[Gamolon]

Curve,

Can you please explain your contradiction with these two quotes:

I'm not saying all of them suggest demolition, and if I don't point that out someone would try to use that strawman. I'm also not saying these prove anything in and of themselves as they are but a piece to a much larger puzzle.

and...

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies

First you say you aren't using the quotes as proof of anything and then you post something that says you posted the same above quotes as proof of demo explosions to show people who claimed that there was a lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions.

So which is it?

Are they proof of demo explosions in your eyes or not?

I will not respond when you purposefully edit my posts to omit what I have said. I will let this one go but if you continue there is no reason to have a discussion. I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives. As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions. That's it. However, it revealed hypocrisy as well. When they didn't know the testimonies existed they claimed the absence of them was evidence no explosives were used. Now that we know the testimonies exist they say they don't matter. That is clear hypocrisy.

And you a friggin' liar. Read your quoted posts again.

In your first quote, you claim that the OCTAs claimed there was no proof of DEMO EXPLOSIONS. Not just plain explosion as you have changed your wording yet again. Sounds of explosions or just plain explosions can be caused by many means. You said DEMO EXPLOSIONS, which takes on a whole different meaning.

DEMO EXPLOSIONS implicitly imply INSIDE JOB as they were planted. Now you try and backpedal? Again?

You clearly said you posted the above quotes as proof of DEMO EXPLOSIONS. Do you understand what you are saying?

Why did you leave out the word DEMO in your next post???

 

[Gamolon]

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used. I saw that on here when I first joined so I posted some of these testimonies ...

What exactly does this post mean then Curve?

You CLEARLY state that there were people here saying that there was a "lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions is proof explosives were not used". Then you go on to say that you posted the quotes from people as evidence that there was eyewitness testimony to DEMO EXPLOSIONS.

Isn't that what you said? You were absolutely posting those testimonies as proof of DEMO EXPLOSIONS.

Yet you now want to spin that quoted material as something else?

 

[Gamolon]

I will not respond when you purposefully edit my posts to omit what I have said. I will let this one go but if you continue there is no reason to have a discussion. I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions

You're a liar. Here is your exact quote from before:

An additional reason to pointing them out is many OCTAs claimed the lack of eyewitness testimonies about demo explosions...

Why did you omit the word DEMO?

and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives.

So you used the testimonies that there was proof of EXPLOSIVES? You're all over the place now. I thought it was for proof of EXPLOSIONS. You do understand the difference between explosives and explosions right?

As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job.

Then what does posting the quotes as proof of DEMO EXPLOSIONS imply? DEMO EXPLOSIONS have to have been set up right?

I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions.

Once again, you said DEMO EXPLOSIONS. It's not my fault you can't keep your terms straight. Big difference in their meanings.

That's it. However, it revealed hypocrisy as well. When they didn't know the testimonies existed they claimed the absence of them was evidence no explosives were used. Now that we know the testimonies exist they say they don't matter. That is clear hypocrisy.

How do they matter Curve?

 

[Gamolon]

They were hidden because the NYT had to file a FOIA suit against New York and fought for over 3 years to get them released:

"The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."

So why do you think they were "hidden"?

This is at least the fifth time you have avoided the question. I jumped through your hoops by providing the testimonies and proving NY kept them hidden from the public and it took over three years of court battles for the NYT to get them made public. Even then not all were released. I've been keeping my word. I can't make you keep your word but I can prevent wasting any more of my time if you dodge the question again.

And I have told you that is opinion. I have no clue why they were "hidden". I wasn't there. Obviously you have some indication as to why they were "hidden" so I am asking you. Why do YOU think they were "hidden". Care to speculate?

 

[candycorn]

not very well hidden if the newspapers know about them, eh? fucking moron.

so the NYT filed a FOIA suit which apparently covered all the city employees. so what is the proof that these individual testimonies were "hidden" and not available on an individual basis? your claim is that NYC responded to the FOIA request and released all the information together as 12,000 pages of ORAL testimony is proof it was hidden. where is the proof that none of this was previously available and it was all hidden?

what kept these people from talking to the NYT on an individual basis?

If it's in the Times, it's not very well hidden....I know newspaper readership is down but it's not that far down. I think the only thing hidden is any evidence of a learned response from him.

 

[CurveLight]

So why do you think they were "hidden"?

This is at least the fifth time you have avoided the question. I jumped through your hoops by providing the testimonies and proving NY kept them hidden from the public and it took over three years of court battles for the NYT to get them made public. Even then not all were released. I've been keeping my word. I can't make you keep your word but I can prevent wasting any more of my time if you dodge the question again.

And I have told you that is opinion. I have no clue why they were "hidden". I wasn't there. Obviously you have some indication as to why they were "hidden" so I am asking you. Why do YOU think they were "hidden". Care to speculate?

Thanks for answering.

Your charges about lying and spinning regarding the explosions is hyperbole. When speaking of explosions it's common knowledge it's referencing explosions to help bring down the buildings. You want to try and ignore NY kept those testimonies hidden for years based on how I use the word "demo" when whether I do or not does not change the context of explosions.

 

[Gamolon]

This is at least the fifth time you have avoided the question. I jumped through your hoops by providing the testimonies and proving NY kept them hidden from the public and it took over three years of court battles for the NYT to get them made public. Even then not all were released. I've been keeping my word. I can't make you keep your word but I can prevent wasting any more of my time if you dodge the question again.

And I have told you that is opinion. I have no clue why they were "hidden". I wasn't there. Obviously you have some indication as to why they were "hidden" so I am asking you. Why do YOU think they were "hidden". Care to speculate?

Thanks for answering.

Your charges about lying and spinning regarding the explosions is hyperbole. When speaking of explosions it's common knowledge it's referencing explosions to help bring down the buildings. You want to try and ignore NY kept those testimonies hidden for years based on how I use the word "demo" when whether I do or not does not change the context of explosions.

So you posted those testimonies when you first came here as proof that there were explosions due to DEMO EXPLOSIVES.

So you ARE implying it was an inside job?

 

[CurveLight]

not very well hidden if the newspapers know about them, eh? fucking moron.

so the NYT filed a FOIA suit which apparently covered all the city employees. so what is the proof that these individual testimonies were "hidden" and not available on an individual basis? your claim is that NYC responded to the FOIA request and released all the information together as 12,000 pages of ORAL testimony is proof it was hidden. where is the proof that none of this was previously available and it was all hidden?

what kept these people from talking to the NYT on an individual basis?

If it's in the Times, it's not very well hidden....I know newspaper readership is down but it's not that far down. I think the only thing hidden is any evidence of a learned response from him.

Didn't I point out they were hidden? As in past tense? Yes. But that does not stop the attempt to distract from the facts.

 

[Gamolon]

not very well hidden if the newspapers know about them, eh? fucking moron.

so the NYT filed a FOIA suit which apparently covered all the city employees. so what is the proof that these individual testimonies were "hidden" and not available on an individual basis? your claim is that NYC responded to the FOIA request and released all the information together as 12,000 pages of ORAL testimony is proof it was hidden. where is the proof that none of this was previously available and it was all hidden?

what kept these people from talking to the NYT on an individual basis?

If it's in the Times, it's not very well hidden....I know newspaper readership is down but it's not that far down. I think the only thing hidden is any evidence of a learned response from him.

Didn't I point out they were hidden? As in past tense? Yes. But that does not stop the attempt to distract from the facts.

So what does the fact that you think they were hidden prove suggest?

 

[CurveLight]

And I have told you that is opinion. I have no clue why they were "hidden". I wasn't there. Obviously you have some indication as to why they were "hidden" so I am asking you. Why do YOU think they were "hidden". Care to speculate?

Thanks for answering.

Your charges about lying and spinning regarding the explosions is hyperbole. When speaking of explosions it's common knowledge it's referencing explosions to help bring down the buildings. You want to try and ignore NY kept those testimonies hidden for years based on how I use the word "demo" when whether I do or not does not change the context of explosions.

So you posted those testimonies when you first came here as proof that there were explosions due to DEMO EXPLOSIVES.

So you ARE implying it was an inside job?

How many times are you going to ask the same question I've already answered at least two or three times. Once again:

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives. As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions. That's it. However, it revealed hypocrisy as well. When they didn't know the testimonies existed they claimed the absence of them was evidence no explosives were used. Now that we know the testimonies exist they say they don't matter. That is clear hypocrisy.


Out of that, pay attention to this part. Pay attention very closely. Please.

"As I've repeatedly said, I did not post them to prove an inside job. I posted them to show the OCTAs are incorrect to say there are no eyewitness testimonies of explosions."

 

[candycorn]

I have a question that I am dying to see answered. Why not focus on what you guys agree on first?

Surely, the opposition doesn't feel that the 9/11 Commission Report got everything wrong? So air what it got right to maybe shorten this thread down to 2-300 pages?

So if you're in opposition, post what the 9/11 Commission Report got right.

I feel that it was right on all of the major points. I feel that the scope of the Commission could have been broader but given the unprecedented nature of the attacks, there was no owners manual that proceeded this attack; no such commission had ever been assembled so without a play book, you have a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking going on and you all sound like damn fools.

Anyway, post what it got right so you can focus on what it got supposedly wrong? I don't think any of the opposition actually closely read the 9/11 Commission Report so I don't think any of you will offer up anything but whenever we have a problem or competing theories on how to proceed in my office, we first lay out what we agree on then focus on the differences.

What say you give that a try?

 

[Gamolon]

I straight up said OCTAs claimed there were no witnesses to explosions and they cited that claim as proof none were used. I showed them that claim is false and there are many eyewitness testimonies of explosives.

The quotes you posted are in no way proof of EXPLOSIONS caused BY EXPLOSIVES. There is no way to prove that.

The quotes you posted are in no way PROOF of EXPLOSIONS as there may have been incidents that SOUNDED like EXPLOSIONS, but weren't. Can you rule out the EXPLOSION sounds being caused by the sounds of columns snapping under a heavy load, a concrete floor slamming into another concrete floor, bodies hitting the ground, aerosol cans exploding, etc. Can you rule those out for sure. If you want those sounds to be proof of EXPLOSIONS, then you need rule out the other causes.

The quotes you provide are in no way proof EXPLOSIVES as there are many things that can cause EXPLOSION sounds other than EXPLOSIVES. I have provided links to people using the words EXPLOSION and it was a tree falling on a car, or a cliff face that fell.

 

[Gamolon]

I have a question that I am dying to see answered. Why not focus on what you guys agree on first?

Surely, the opposition doesn't feel that the 9/11 Commission Report got everything wrong? So air what it got right to maybe shorten this thread down to 2-300 pages?

So if you're in opposition, post what the 9/11 Commission Report got right.

I feel that it was right on all of the major points. I feel that the scope of the Commission could have been broader but given the unprecedented nature of the attacks, there was no owners manual that proceeded this attack; no such commission had ever been assembled so without a play book, you have a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking going on and you all sound like damn fools.

Anyway, post what it got right so you can focus on what it got supposedly wrong? I don't think any of the opposition actually closely read the 9/11 Commission Report so I don't think any of you will offer up anything but whenever we have a problem or competing theories on how to proceed in my office, we first lay out what we agree on then focus on the differences.

What say you give that a try?

Candy, I asked this of Curve. I asked him what problem he had with the CR. He replied back with the list of questions he linked to.

It seems that Curve does not find anything wrong with the CR, but that is is incomplete based on the fact that people have issues more questions about it that have gone unanswered. Hence the argument that it is not "complete".

That's my take on it.

 

[Terral]

Hi Curve and Gam with many of your Govt Cover Story Stooges mentioned:

That's it, just wondering if there is anyone who knows the Official Theory well enough to debate it? If so, please respond. Thank you.

Are you going to debate against it?

This is the kind of BS we get from the resident Official Govt Cover Story LIARS around this place. All of them run to wave their silly arms around and curse against 'the' 911Truth (my Work), but NONE OF THEM is willing to start their own Topic with 'evidence' to support their Govt Cover Story LIES. I sent out the Challenge (my Topic) and NONE of them (Gam, Fizz, Ollie, CandyCorn, Trojan, DiveBomb, etc.) has the courage to start 'any' 911Truth Topics at all.

Real 911Truthers like me (#3) will never have the opportunity to come behind and offer rebuttals to their Official Cover Story STUPIDITY, because none of the Official Govt LIARS around here have the gonads to start the Topic. Period.

GL,

Terral

 

[CurveLight]

Hi Curve and Gam with many of your Govt Cover Story Stooges mentioned:

That's it, just wondering if there is anyone who knows the Official Theory well enough to debate it? If so, please respond. Thank you.

Are you going to debate against it?

This is the kind of BS we get from the resident Official Govt Cover Story LIARS around this place. All of them run to wave their silly arms around and curse against 'the' 911Truth (my Work), but NONE OF THEM is willing to start their own Topic with 'evidence' to support their Govt Cover Story LIES. I sent out the Challenge (my Topic) and NONE of them (Gam, Fizz, Ollie, CandyCorn, Trojan, DiveBomb, etc.) has the courage to start 'any' 911Truth Topics at all.

Real 911Truthers like me (#3) will never have the opportunity to come behind and offer rebuttals to their Official Cover Story STUPIDITY, because none of the Official Govt LIARS around here have the gonads to start the Topic. Period.

GL,

Terral

Could you pick ten items from the 9E CR and briefly state why those 10 items are inaccurate or deceptive based on omission of facts and information? I suggest avoiding huge font, bolding, or other means of highlighting the text. Let the facts themselves be the highlight.

 

[Fizz]

Hi Curve and Gam with many of your Govt Cover Story Stooges mentioned:

That's it, just wondering if there is anyone who knows the Official Theory well enough to debate it? If so, please respond. Thank you.

Are you going to debate against it?

This is the kind of BS we get from the resident Official Govt Cover Story LIARS around this place. All of them run to wave their silly arms around and curse against 'the' 911Truth (my Work), but NONE OF THEM is willing to start their own Topic with 'evidence' to support their Govt Cover Story LIES. I sent out the Challenge (my Topic) and NONE of them (Gam, Fizz, Ollie, CandyCorn, Trojan, DiveBomb, etc.) has the courage to start 'any' 911Truth Topics at all.

Real 911Truthers like me (#3) will never have the opportunity to come behind and offer rebuttals to their Official Cover Story STUPIDITY, because none of the Official Govt LIARS around here have the gonads to start the Topic. Period.

GL,

Terral

liar.

i started a thread asking why so many twoofers are deadbeat dads (including you), slackjawed started a topic saying the 9/11 commission report is correct (i dont really see the conspiracy there, but you asked for it) and ☭proletarian☭ started a thread about the stupid acronyms you used.

again, you fail to understand that the official version of events isnt a conspiracy so there really is no need to start a thread in the conspiracy forum.

 

[CurveLight]

Hi Curve and Gam with many of your Govt Cover Story Stooges mentioned:

Are you going to debate against it?

This is the kind of BS we get from the resident Official Govt Cover Story LIARS around this place. All of them run to wave their silly arms around and curse against 'the' 911Truth (my Work), but NONE OF THEM is willing to start their own Topic with 'evidence' to support their Govt Cover Story LIES. I sent out the Challenge (my Topic) and NONE of them (Gam, Fizz, Ollie, CandyCorn, Trojan, DiveBomb, etc.) has the courage to start 'any' 911Truth Topics at all.

Real 911Truthers like me (#3) will never have the opportunity to come behind and offer rebuttals to their Official Cover Story STUPIDITY, because none of the Official Govt LIARS around here have the gonads to start the Topic. Period.

GL,

Terral

liar.

i started a thread asking why so many twoofers are deadbeat dads (including you), slackjawed started a topic saying the 9/11 commission report is correct (i dont really see the conspiracy there, but you asked for it) and ☭proletarian☭ started a thread about the stupid acronyms you used.

again, you fail to understand that the official version of events isnt a conspiracy so there really is no need to start a thread in the conspiracy forum.

What is the official version if it is not a conspiracy? Doesn't the OCT claim terrorists conspired together to attack the US? Let's see:

"A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act."
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context

No matter who is partially or fully responsible, they are all guilty of a conspiracy against the US.

 

[Fizz]

Hi Curve and Gam with many of your Govt Cover Story Stooges mentioned:



This is the kind of BS we get from the resident Official Govt Cover Story LIARS around this place. All of them run to wave their silly arms around and curse against 'the' 911Truth (my Work), but NONE OF THEM is willing to start their own Topic with 'evidence' to support their Govt Cover Story LIES. I sent out the Challenge (my Topic) and NONE of them (Gam, Fizz, Ollie, CandyCorn, Trojan, DiveBomb, etc.) has the courage to start 'any' 911Truth Topics at all.

Real 911Truthers like me (#3) will never have the opportunity to come behind and offer rebuttals to their Official Cover Story STUPIDITY, because none of the Official Govt LIARS around here have the gonads to start the Topic. Period.

GL,

Terral

liar.

i started a thread asking why so many twoofers are deadbeat dads (including you), slackjawed started a topic saying the 9/11 commission report is correct (i dont really see the conspiracy there, but you asked for it) and ☭proletarian☭ started a thread about the stupid acronyms you used.

again, you fail to understand that the official version of events isnt a conspiracy so there really is no need to start a thread in the conspiracy forum.

What is the official version if it is not a conspiracy? Doesn't the OCT claim terrorists conspired together to attack the US? Let's see:

"A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act."
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context

No matter who is partially or fully responsible, they are all guilty of a conspiracy against the US.

its not a secret.

 

[CurveLight]

liar.

i started a thread asking why so many twoofers are deadbeat dads (including you), slackjawed started a topic saying the 9/11 commission report is correct (i dont really see the conspiracy there, but you asked for it) and ☭proletarian☭ started a thread about the stupid acronyms you used.

again, you fail to understand that the official version of events isnt a conspiracy so there really is no need to start a thread in the conspiracy forum.

What is the official version if it is not a conspiracy? Doesn't the OCT claim terrorists conspired together to attack the US? Let's see:

"A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act."
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context

No matter who is partially or fully responsible, they are all guilty of a conspiracy against the US.

its not a secret.

You have an amazing ability to try and twist absolutely everything to tailor your bullshit. A conspiracy doesn't mean the illegal act will be done in secret. It means:

"A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act."

It means the planning and agreement are done in secret. It doesn't say the unlawful act is a secret.