Don't be blind

[Foxfyre]

That would depend on whether you are willing to put your 'facts' into their full context with all the factors involved included.

.........

I've already posted plenty in their full context. Why the hell are you going to make me go back through the thread to post them again? It's not like you check my sources out.

I don't need to check your sources out. I am confident that they all support what you want to believe.

What I am talking about as full context are including all the credible sources that dispute your sources. I'm not talking at all about highly partisan or wingnut websites, but non partisan, and non political evaluations by credible architects, engineers, and scientists.

Anybody who knows how to minimally use a browser can come up with any number of sources who will agree with just about any thesis you want to put out there.

When the questions of 9/11 as an inside job first came up, I read ALL the sources, theories, propaganda, and other information that was being posted. I read your sources. And I read the other sources.

I think the sources who dispute that 9/11 was an inside job have far more credibility and make a far better case than those promoting the inside job theory.

I have come to my conclusions about illegal immigration, global warming, the healthcare bill, cap & trade etc. the very same way. Unless you read ALL sides with an open mind, there is no way to arrive at an informed opinion.

My informed opinion is that any theory that 9/11 was an inside job is ludicrous and is being promoted by people who like creating conspiracy theories for the benefit of those who want to believe them.

But that's just me.

 

[Terral]

Hi Proud:

Seriously. There is a looming one world government. It will not be a utopia by any stretch of the imagination. If anything it will be global Nazi dictatorship. All the non subjective EVIDENCE points to this ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JqDyuPCxxI]The Sheeple Are Sound Asleep ...[/ame]

The USA "Is" (#1-10) Going To Be "Utterly Destroyed" ...

GL,

Terral

 

[candycorn]

That would depend on whether you are willing to put your 'facts' into their full context with all the factors involved included.

.........

What specific point in the 9/11 Commission Report are you saying is inaccurate? You have read the report, right?

 

[candycorn]

That would depend on whether you are willing to put your 'facts' into their full context with all the factors involved included.

.........

I've already posted plenty in their full context. Why the hell are you going to make me go back through the thread to post them again? It's not like you check my sources out.

I don't need to check your sources out. I am confident that they all support what you want to believe.

What I am talking about as full context are including all the credible sources that dispute your sources. I'm not talking at all about highly partisan or wingnut websites, but non partisan, and non political evaluations by credible architects, engineers, and scientists.

Anybody who knows how to minimally use a browser can come up with any number of sources who will agree with just about any thesis you want to put out there.

When the questions of 9/11 as an inside job first came up, I read ALL the sources, theories, propaganda, and other information that was being posted. I read your sources. And I read the other sources.

I think the sources who dispute that 9/11 was an inside job have far more credibility and make a far better case than those promoting the inside job theory.

I have come to my conclusions about illegal immigration, global warming, the healthcare bill, cap & trade etc. the very same way. Unless you read ALL sides with an open mind, there is no way to arrive at an informed opinion.

My informed opinion is that any theory that 9/11 was an inside job is ludicrous and is being promoted by people who like creating conspiracy theories for the benefit of those who want to believe them.

But that's just me.

And about 6 billion other people. Which sort of confirms what I've always said about twoofers; they just want the attention they can't earn on their own through their own deeds, accomplishments, etc..

 

[DiveCon]

That would depend on whether you are willing to put your 'facts' into their full context with all the factors involved included.

.........

reposting the same tired troofer moronic bullshit doesnt change the fact you fucktards are delusional and need serious professional help

 

[Foxfyre]

That would depend on whether you are willing to put your 'facts' into their full context with all the factors involved included.

.........

What specific point in the 9/11 Commission Report are you saying is inaccurate? You have read the report, right?

Well I don't know if Twoofer has read it, but I have. And I have read or listened to the commentary of knowledgeable people who have read it.

I don't have any major quarrel with the 9/11 Commission Report per se, but I do have a problem with some of the people who produced it. I don't think the makeup of the commission contributed to error, but I do think it resulted in some facts being downplayed that otherwise would not have been downplayed had there not been some conflicts of interest on the Commission. Jamie Gorelick for instance, Deputy AG under Clinton, was instrumental in policy that made it difficult for the CIA and FBI to communicate with each other. However well intentioned that policy might have been, it turned out to be a factor that I think was not emphasized strongly enough in the 9/11 Commission Report. And I figure it was not emphasized to avoid embarrassing Gorelick.

So while the 9/11 Commission Report is the first document that should be mandatory reading in researching the subject, it is by no means the ONLY credible source that should be considered.

 

[eots]

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie


by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie - 911truth.org

 

[candycorn]

.........

What specific point in the 9/11 Commission Report are you saying is inaccurate? You have read the report, right?

Well I don't know if Twoofer has read it, but I have. And I have read or listened to the commentary of knowledgeable people who have read it.

I don't have any major quarrel with the 9/11 Commission Report per se, but I do have a problem with some of the people who produced it. I don't think the makeup of the commission contributed to error, but I do think it resulted in some facts being downplayed that otherwise would not have been downplayed had there not been some conflicts of interest on the Commission. Jamie Gorelick for instance, Deputy AG under Clinton, was instrumental in policy that made it difficult for the CIA and FBI to communicate with each other. However well intentioned that policy might have been, it turned out to be a factor that I think was not emphasized strongly enough in the 9/11 Commission Report. And I figure it was not emphasized to avoid embarrassing Gorelick.

So while the 9/11 Commission Report is the first document that should be mandatory reading in researching the subject, it is by no means the ONLY credible source that should be considered.

I personally would have preferred that there be no former politicians on the Commission. I would have gone with University Presidents, university department deans--guys and gals who chair the College of Physics at MIT or something similar, apolitical generals or admirals (inevitable conflict of interest but nobody knows military capabilities better than these people, and finally some chiefs of police. But the document the Commission rendered, is bulletproof on the major points. I'm often tickled that on this board and the two others that I post on, there have been tens of thousands of posts on this topic and to date, nobody has pointed out one major inaccuracy in the text of the report.

 

[DiveCon]

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie


by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie - 911truth.org

why do you support that fucking idiot
oh, thats right you are a dipshit that needs someone elses opinion instead of your own

 

[candycorn]

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie


by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie - 911truth.org

why do you support that fucking idiot
oh, thats right you are a dipshit that needs someone elses opinion instead of your own

eots is garbage

 

[DiveCon]

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie


by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie - 911truth.org

why do you support that fucking idiot
oh, thats right you are a dipshit that needs someone elses opinion instead of your own

eots is garbage

garbage, dipshit, same thing

 

[Foxfyre]

What specific point in the 9/11 Commission Report are you saying is inaccurate? You have read the report, right?

Well I don't know if Twoofer has read it, but I have. And I have read or listened to the commentary of knowledgeable people who have read it.

I don't have any major quarrel with the 9/11 Commission Report per se, but I do have a problem with some of the people who produced it. I don't think the makeup of the commission contributed to error, but I do think it resulted in some facts being downplayed that otherwise would not have been downplayed had there not been some conflicts of interest on the Commission. Jamie Gorelick for instance, Deputy AG under Clinton, was instrumental in policy that made it difficult for the CIA and FBI to communicate with each other. However well intentioned that policy might have been, it turned out to be a factor that I think was not emphasized strongly enough in the 9/11 Commission Report. And I figure it was not emphasized to avoid embarrassing Gorelick.

So while the 9/11 Commission Report is the first document that should be mandatory reading in researching the subject, it is by no means the ONLY credible source that should be considered.

I personally would have preferred that there be no former politicians on the Commission. I would have gone with University Presidents, university department deans--guys and gals who chair the College of Physics at MIT or something similar, apolitical generals or admirals (inevitable conflict of interest but nobody knows military capabilities better than these people, and finally some chiefs of police. But the document the Commission rendered, is bulletproof on the major points. I'm often tickled that on this board and the two others that I post on, there have been tens of thousands of posts on this topic and to date, nobody has pointed out one major inaccuracy in the text of the report.

You and I seem to be pretty much on the same page here, except no way in hell would I have wanted academics anywhere near that Commission.

I do think the military intelligence types, police officers, veteran airport security personnel, customs experts, and maybe one two skilled lawyers trained to make sure all the t's are crossed, all the i's dotted etc. would have been the way to go. But I agree there are no major inaccuracies in the text of the report.

 

[candycorn]

Well I don't know if Twoofer has read it, but I have. And I have read or listened to the commentary of knowledgeable people who have read it.

I don't have any major quarrel with the 9/11 Commission Report per se, but I do have a problem with some of the people who produced it. I don't think the makeup of the commission contributed to error, but I do think it resulted in some facts being downplayed that otherwise would not have been downplayed had there not been some conflicts of interest on the Commission. Jamie Gorelick for instance, Deputy AG under Clinton, was instrumental in policy that made it difficult for the CIA and FBI to communicate with each other. However well intentioned that policy might have been, it turned out to be a factor that I think was not emphasized strongly enough in the 9/11 Commission Report. And I figure it was not emphasized to avoid embarrassing Gorelick.

So while the 9/11 Commission Report is the first document that should be mandatory reading in researching the subject, it is by no means the ONLY credible source that should be considered.

I personally would have preferred that there be no former politicians on the Commission. I would have gone with University Presidents, university department deans--guys and gals who chair the College of Physics at MIT or something similar, apolitical generals or admirals (inevitable conflict of interest but nobody knows military capabilities better than these people, and finally some chiefs of police. But the document the Commission rendered, is bulletproof on the major points. I'm often tickled that on this board and the two others that I post on, there have been tens of thousands of posts on this topic and to date, nobody has pointed out one major inaccuracy in the text of the report.

You and I seem to be pretty much on the same page here, except no way in hell would I have wanted academics anywhere near that Commission.

I do think the military intelligence types, police officers, veteran airport security personnel, customs experts, and maybe one two skilled lawyers trained to make sure all the t's are crossed, all the i's dotted etc. would have been the way to go. But I agree there are no major inaccuracies in the text of the report.

Out of curiosity, why would you not want academics anywhere near the commission? Richard Fyneman (theoretical physicist who was at Trinity) sat on the Rogers Commission and supplied a wealth of technical know how. If you ever get a chance to read up on Fyneman, you should; fascinating person.

Anyway, the 9/11 Commission Report is not only bulletproof on the major points, it has the added benefit of being, well, logical. Its not only the most accurate version of the events of that day that I have read, it is the only accurate version of events in existence TTBOMK.

 

[Foxfyre]

I personally would have preferred that there be no former politicians on the Commission. I would have gone with University Presidents, university department deans--guys and gals who chair the College of Physics at MIT or something similar, apolitical generals or admirals (inevitable conflict of interest but nobody knows military capabilities better than these people, and finally some chiefs of police. But the document the Commission rendered, is bulletproof on the major points. I'm often tickled that on this board and the two others that I post on, there have been tens of thousands of posts on this topic and to date, nobody has pointed out one major inaccuracy in the text of the report.

You and I seem to be pretty much on the same page here, except no way in hell would I have wanted academics anywhere near that Commission.

I do think the military intelligence types, police officers, veteran airport security personnel, customs experts, and maybe one two skilled lawyers trained to make sure all the t's are crossed, all the i's dotted etc. would have been the way to go. But I agree there are no major inaccuracies in the text of the report.

Out of curiosity, why would you not want academics anywhere near the commission? Richard Fyneman (theoretical physicist who was at Trinity) sat on the Rogers Commission and supplied a wealth of technical know how. If you ever get a chance to read up on Fyneman, you should; fascinating person.

Anyway, the 9/11 Commission Report is not only bulletproof on the major points, it has the added benefit of being, well, logical. Its not only the most accurate version of the events of that day that I have read, it is the only accurate version of events in existence TTBOMK.

If you could assure me that it was one of the good ones--someone with the temperament and insight of say a Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or perhaps Dr. Fyneman as you suggest, it would be fine. Usually when academics are drafted for that kind of commission though, they are the nutty fruitcake variety.

 

[eots]

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie


by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie - 911truth.org

why do you support that fucking idiot
oh, thats right you are a dipshit that needs someone elses opinion instead of your own

because he sent me a email saying what an idiot you are and how you could not address any of his issues...and he was correct

 

[ProudTwoofer]

What I am talking about as full context are including all the credible sources that dispute your sources. I'm not talking at all about highly partisan or wingnut websites, but non partisan, and non political evaluations by credible architects, engineers, and scientists.

Anybody who knows how to minimally use a browser can come up with any number of sources who will agree with just about any thesis you want to put out there.

When the questions of 9/11 as an inside job first came up, I read ALL the sources, theories, propaganda, and other information that was being posted. I read your sources. And I read the other sources.

I think the sources who dispute that 9/11 was an inside job have far more credibility and make a far better case than those promoting the inside job theory.

I have come to my conclusions about illegal immigration, global warming, the healthcare bill, cap & trade etc. the very same way. Unless you read ALL sides with an open mind, there is no way to arrive at an informed opinion.

My informed opinion is that any theory that 9/11 was an inside job is ludicrous and is being promoted by people who like creating conspiracy theories for the benefit of those who want to believe them.

But that's just me.

Do you think the truth movement is right wing or left wing? We are not biased. We loathe Bush as much as Obama if you haven't noticed.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI]YouTube - World Exclusive: WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaH0Ws8RtSc]YouTube - War on the Weak: Eugenics in America[/ame]

^The person who made that isn't a truther.

Records of the Secretary of Defense (RG 330

^Operation Paperclip from the National Archives, can't get much more neutral then that, can you?

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian

Is the Guardian neutral enough for you?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8]YouTube - Rep. Brad Sherman Martial Law[/ame]

A History of Governmentally Coerced Sterilization: The Plight of the Native American Woman | Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times

Is Atlantic Free Press neutral enough?

Global ObamaCare and World Population Control

The New American?

What about CSPAN? That brief clip makes it crystal clear. Nobody is taking him out of context for "political gain".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBA65i26lv8]YouTube - Parents of Indoctrinated Children in New Jersey Outraged over Barack Obama Worship Song[/ame]

I hate Fox as much as anybody else, but this is crystal clear as well.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY]YouTube - Rachel Maddow: Indefinite detention? Shame on you... President Obama[/ame]

40 CFR: Protection of the Environment | Laws & Regulations | US EPA
Approximately 8600 gallons of fuel would have been ignited on the 757 that hit the pentagon. We look at the pentagon and ask ourselves, is the damage consistent with that amount of fuel being ignited? The amount of fuel left in the aircraft that hit the pentagon would have reduced that section to rubble and it would have burned for days. And 8600 gallons of fuel had a BTU rate of 86000000. The fuel spill of 8600 gallons would consist of a very large soil removal project since the contaminated soil would be considered hazardous waste under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti8eyZL_7Co]YouTube - Rick Sanchez 911 police have found a 'suspicious device'[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B4vbO67Bp4]YouTube - Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy MEDIA LIES 9/11[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V38SlquOjvE]YouTube - Pod Under Flight 175? Military Plane Hit South Tower! Proved by CNN Footage![/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWXrMCGJT4]YouTube - SEN. SANDERS GOES OFF ON BERNANKE_ 03/03/09[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1dlgbVLRCM]YouTube - 9/11 commission was ordered to scale down investigation[/ame]

NOTHING IS BEING TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

 

[DiveCon]

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie


by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie - 911truth.org

why do you support that fucking idiot
oh, thats right you are a dipshit that needs someone elses opinion instead of your own

because he sent me a email saying what an idiot you are and how you could not address any of his issues...and he was correct

what a fucking ID-Eot you are

 

[candycorn]

What I am talking about as full context are including all the credible sources that dispute your sources. I'm not talking at all about highly partisan or wingnut websites, but non partisan, and non political evaluations by credible architects, engineers, and scientists.

So, what was it about the 9/11 Commission Report you feel is in error again? You did read it, didn't you?

 

[ProudTwoofer]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1PEs0btWWc]YouTube - Bin Laden FBI most wanted page omits 9/11[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - Bin Laden FBI most wanted page omits 9/11

more troofer minutia