Don't be blind

[Foxfyre]

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?

CC, the coding got screwed up in this so at first blush it looks like you're asking me instead of ProudTwoofer. You might want to clarify.

 

[candycorn]

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

CC, the coding got screwed up in this so at first blush it looks like you're asking me instead of ProudTwoofer. You might want to clarify.

Yeah, I saw that; my bad.

Re-direct. Proudtwoofer:

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

 

[DiveCon]

Re-direct. Proudtwoofer:

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

highlighted

 

[Foxfyre]

at Divecon

 

[ProudTwoofer]

Off the top of my head

1)The testimony of William Rodriguez being omitted.

2)The omission of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

3)Raw Story Report: much of 9/11 Commission’s findings cite intelligence garnered by torture

4)The Raw Story | FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

and

The Raw Story | Page 2: FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

 

[ProudTwoofer]

Oh, and page 313 of the updated edition with 3rd monograph and the state of the Pentagon prior to collapse.

I may be wrong but didn't you even question whether or not a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon Foxfyre?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh, and page 313 of the updated edition with 3rd monograph and the state of the Pentagon prior to collapse.

I may be wrong but didn't you even question whether or not a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon Foxfyre?

There is no question that a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon. They found the blackl boxes, they Found the DNA evidence of the passengers from Flight 77. They found most of the plane. What is it that you deny?

 

[candycorn]

Off the top of my head

1)The testimony of William Rodriguez being omitted.

Omissions aren't errors in the text of the report; especially from a proven liar like W-ROD (a rumble became a gigantic boom!!!; remember)

2)The omission of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Which says what exactly?

3)Raw Story Report: much of 9/11 Commission’s findings cite intelligence garnered by torture

The veracity of statements isn't determined by the means of acquisition; put another way, the statement is either true or false on its own.

4)The Raw Story | FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

and

The Raw Story | Page 2: FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

This is your objection--where one of the hi-jackers supposedly was 8 months prior to the attacks--if they were in one city or another in southern California? At any rate, unless you can show that the Pentbom report referenced on your source says something different, the Commission and it's report can't be found in fault for reporting what it said in Pentbom; if in fact Pentbom says they spent the two weeks there.


A week after the Malaysian summit, al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi traveled to the United States. According to the 9/11 Commission report, they arrived in Los Angeles on Jan. 15 and “spent about two weeks there before moving to San Diego.” (9/11 Commission report, p. 215, chapter 7).

as opposed to:

Why did the Commission use an alternate source for the whereabouts of the two men, when the FBI’s own timeline said they were in San Diego by Jan. 15, the same day as their arrival in the US?

In any event, where one of the 19 hijackers was precisely for two weeks in January is of minute consequence especially when the difference is LA or San Diego; a two hour car trip from one to the other's central business district; even shorter when you consider the 'burbs.

Surely you've read the report....right?

Therefore surely you can quote SOMETHING IN THE REPORT that is inaccurate in a major way....

Just read a .pdf of the report--err I mean read the passages that you have a problem with, highlight them on your screen and copy and paste them here....then paste the supposedly accurate information. Not that hard if you found something in the report that was inaccurate.

Shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[eots]

regardless of what errors are posted cuntycorn will dismiss them and call them debwunked then repeat her stupid claim there are no errors

 

[DiveCon]

regardless of what errors are posted cuntycorn will dismiss them and call them debwunked then repeat her stupid claim there are no errors

because they are MINUTIA, dipshit

 

[ProudTwoofer]

There is no question that a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon. They found the blackl boxes, they Found the DNA evidence of the passengers from Flight 77. They found most of the plane. What is it that you deny?

Ollie, I'm probably wasting my time since it's "too painful" for you to consider that our government could do this to us when you've served our country, even though there are plenty of military vets who aren't blind.

Veterans for 911 Truth, Operation Vigilant Truth

I've already shown that there was planted evidence in Shanksville. There was planted evidence at the Pentagon as well.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8]YouTube - The Jamie Mcintyre Live Feed from Sept 11 2001[/ame]

Also, since you are obviously unaware, all the images we see of the Pentagon are AFTER the collapse of the roof. Before the collapse, the roof is intact and there's no impact point where the tail would have struck.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI]YouTube - Pentagon Before Collapse And Witness[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UDiaCrpLHg]YouTube - Pentagon after hit before collapse[/ame]

Omissions aren't errors in the text of the report; especially from a proven liar like W-ROD (a rumble became a gigantic boom!!!; remember)

This will turn into a linguistics argument.

We're back to the linguistics argument again?

There are countless others who heard bombs go off too, including firefighters who know what natural anomalies sound like, remember? The testimony of William Rodriguez is CORROBORATED.

Which says what exactly?

Let me ask you something. Why do you participate in this thread if you don't read my posts in their entirety?

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. Look at the post attack footage and ask yourself, 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.

Surely you've read the report....right?

Therefore surely you can quote SOMETHING IN THE REPORT that is inaccurate in a major way....

Just read a .pdf of the report--err I mean read the passages that you have a problem with, highlight them on your screen and copy and paste them here....then paste the supposedly accurate information. Not that hard if you found something in the report that was inaccurate.

Shouldn't be that difficult.

I. Own. The Omission. Report. Hence. Directing. You. To. Page. 313. Of. The. Updated. Report. With. 3rd. Monograph.

You want to omit the omissions?

 

[DiveCon]

holy shit
hearing explosions does not equal BOMBS
dipshit

 

[ProudTwoofer]

holy shit
hearing explosions does not equal BOMBS
dipshit

Very good. Hearing explosions does not equal bombs. But like I've said before in this thread.

Loud BOOMS from the towers mean 1 of 2 things. Either natural anomalies which firefighters hear every day, or explosives. And Barry Jennings testimony is one of many that leaves no room for interpretation.

 

[Fizz]

Also, since you are obviously unaware, all the images we see of the Pentagon are AFTER the collapse of the roof. Before the collapse, the roof is intact and there's no impact point where the tail would have struck.

bullshit.

not sure exactly what you would expect to see when an aluminum tail hits a blast reinforced concrete wall.

 

[Fizz]

holy shit
hearing explosions does not equal BOMBS
dipshit

Very good. Hearing explosions does not equal bombs. But like I've said before in this thread.

Loud BOOMS from the towers mean 1 of 2 things. Either natural anomalies which firefighters hear every day, or explosives. And Barry Jennings testimony is one of many that leaves no room for interpretation.

where are the explosions?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc]YouTube - WTC Collapse Best Angle - InfoDebug.com[/ame]

watch the corner of the building buckle with NO EXPLOSIONS.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8]YouTube - Proof of NO Controlled Demolitions - South Tower 9/11 RARE[/ame]

this is what REAL building demolitions sound like. do you hear any similarity at all?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ]YouTube - Landmark Implosion[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

holy shit
hearing explosions does not equal BOMBS
dipshit

Very good. Hearing explosions does not equal bombs. But like I've said before in this thread.

Loud BOOMS from the towers mean 1 of 2 things. Either natural anomalies which firefighters hear every day, or explosives. And Barry Jennings testimony is one of many that leaves no room for interpretation.

where are the explosions?


watch the corner of the building buckle with NO EXPLOSIONS.


this is what REAL building demolitions sound like. do you hear any similarity at all?

the explosions heard at times totally inconsistent with demolition charges and did not happen at times near to the collapse

 

[SFC Ollie]

There is no question that a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon. They found the blackl boxes, they Found the DNA evidence of the passengers from Flight 77. They found most of the plane. What is it that you deny?

Ollie, I'm probably wasting my time since it's "too painful" for you to consider that our government could do this to us when you've served our country, even though there are plenty of military vets who aren't blind.



I've already shown that there was planted evidence in Shanksville. There was planted evidence at the Pentagon as well.


Also, since you are obviously unaware, all the images we see of the Pentagon are AFTER the collapse of the roof. Before the collapse, the roof is intact and there's no impact point where the tail would have struck.

Omissions aren't errors in the text of the report; especially from a proven liar like W-ROD (a rumble became a gigantic boom!!!; remember)

We're back to the linguistics argument again?

There are countless others who heard bombs go off too, including firefighters who know what natural anomalies sound like, remember? The testimony of William Rodriguez is CORROBORATED.

Which says what exactly?

Let me ask you something. Why do you participate in this thread if you don't read my posts in their entirety?

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. Look at the post attack footage and ask yourself, 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.

Surely you've read the report....right?

Therefore surely you can quote SOMETHING IN THE REPORT that is inaccurate in a major way....

Just read a .pdf of the report--err I mean read the passages that you have a problem with, highlight them on your screen and copy and paste them here....then paste the supposedly accurate information. Not that hard if you found something in the report that was inaccurate.

Shouldn't be that difficult.

I. Own. The Omission. Report. Hence. Directing. You. To. Page. 313. Of. The. Updated. Report. With. 3rd. Monograph.

You want to omit the omissions?

Wow, so because i am retired military I am blinded to anything our Government might do? Or is it that I might know a little bit about the Pentagon? You claim to have proven that evidence was planted at the Pentagon, I must really be blind because I have never seen any such evidence from anyone.

And if you were to look at the images of the pentagon from before the collapse you would see that you cannot tell where the plane hit because of the smoke, water, and steam.

And just in case you are one of those, there are no AA Battery's at the Pentagon.

Once again there are over 100 eye witnesses to seeing the plane hit the pentagon.
The Black Boxes were found.
Almost all of the passengers from Flt 77 were identified by DNA match (I believe there was one little girl who was never found at all).
Flight 77 was on radar.

Now if you have concrete proof, that might be admissible in court to disprove that Flt 77 slammed into the reinforced section f the Pentagon (I almost forgot you think the pentagon is like all office buildings) please bring it forward. But if all you have is the same old accusations and BS, well I've probably heard it.

 

[ProudTwoofer]

bullshit.

not sure exactly what you would expect to see when an aluminum tail hits a blast reinforced concrete wall.

First of all, when I type in ninasquad.org, I get a blank page. Second, where the hell did the image come from? What is the source? The only way that photo is legit is if it was taken split seconds after the impact. We already know there was a SHORT explosion that occurred after the impact, not like there was a 4 minute fireworks display. That doesn't prove anything.

where are the explosions?

The military is always at least a decade ahead of the average citizen technology. It's perfectly logical a building could be taken down without the sound of explosions. Bringing down entire buildings and simply having small explosions go off in them to trap or kill those inside are 2 different things. Also, you might want to speak with the firefighters who saw demolition flashes as the towers fell. Wait! Let me beat you to it.

FIRST RESPONDERS ARE NOT RELIABLE EVEN IF THEIR TESTIMONY CORROBORATES!

Wow, so because i am retired military I am blinded to anything our Government might do? Or is it that I might know a little bit about the Pentagon?

No. It has more to do with your generation. MOST your age, whether democrat or republican do go by the logic "in AMERICA patriotism means no questions", world leaders from other parts of the world surely could have ulterior motives that stretch beyond "self interest", but not here in the good ole USA despite America's filthy, corrupt, evil history.

You claim to have proven that evidence was planted at the Pentagon, I must really be blind because I have never seen any such evidence from anyone.

And if you were to look at the images of the pentagon from before the collapse you would see that you cannot tell where the plane hit because of the smoke, water, and steam.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQM7UUaCcM]YouTube - 9/11 Pentagon Roof Collapse and Damage ABC Sept. 11, 2001 6:40 PM[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI]YouTube - Pentagon Before Collapse And Witness[/ame]

Once again there are over 100 eye witnesses to seeing the plane hit the pentagon.

The witnesses fall under one of four groups. They don't know what drones look like, they'll buy whatever they are told like you, they question what they saw but don't have the courage to speak out, or they are simply liars working for the global elite.

The Black Boxes were found.

Ollie, seriously. How many of my sources have you checked out that I've provided in this thread that aren't subjective that comes from random bums who have no credibility? Is it safe to assume 15 tops, if that?

 

[candycorn]

Ollie, I'm probably wasting my time since it's "too painful" for you to consider that our government could do this to us when you've served our country, even though there are plenty of military vets who aren't blind.

Veterans for 911 Truth, Operation Vigilant Truth

I've already shown that there was planted evidence in Shanksville. There was planted evidence at the Pentagon as well.

YouTube - The Jamie Mcintyre Live Feed from Sept 11 2001

Also, since you are obviously unaware, all the images we see of the Pentagon are AFTER the collapse of the roof. Before the collapse, the roof is intact and there's no impact point where the tail would have struck.

The witnesses fall under one of four groups. They don't know what drones look like, they'll buy whatever they are told like you, they question what they saw but don't have the courage to speak out, or they are simply liars working for the global elite.

Where are the Flight 77 passengers in your fantasy?

What knocked down the five lightpoles that show AA77's path to the Pentagon if it wasn't AA77?

How did they plant evidence that was, in fact, on fire and had to be extinguished?

How about the phone calls from AA77 that report a hi-jacking?

How about the explosion that is perfectly reminiscent of the two we saw in New York when we saw planes hit buildings?

Why mess with AA77 at all--why hijack a plane and not use it as they did twice on that day?

Have fun.

 

[candycorn]

Omissions aren't errors in the text of the report; especially from a proven liar like W-ROD (a rumble became a gigantic boom!!!; remember)

We're back to the linguistics argument again?

There are countless others who heard bombs go off too, including firefighters who know what natural anomalies sound like, remember? The testimony of William Rodriguez is CORROBORATED.

Its not a linguistics argument. When asked one time, he said "rumble" and didn't report getting blown off of his feet. When asked another time he said "Boom!!!" and said he was blown off of his feet. Your continued defense of this obvious liar really casts a dark shadow on you. But thats your cross to bear.

Which says what exactly?

Let me ask you something. Why do you participate in this thread if you don't read my posts in their entirety?

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. Look at the post attack footage and ask yourself, 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.

So your problem--not with the 9/11 Commission Report--is that there isn't enough pollution there? Wow.

Surely you've read the report....right?

Therefore surely you can quote SOMETHING IN THE REPORT that is inaccurate in a major way....

Just read a .pdf of the report--err I mean read the passages that you have a problem with, highlight them on your screen and copy and paste them here....then paste the supposedly accurate information. Not that hard if you found something in the report that was inaccurate.

Shouldn't be that difficult.

I. Own. The Omission. Report. Hence. Directing. You. To. Page. 313. Of. The. Updated. Report. With. 3rd. Monograph.

You want to omit the omissions?

[/quote]

No.
I want you to quote the text that explains a major point INSIDE THE REPORT that you feel is inaccurate and show how it is inaccurate using credible sources, peer reviewed research, and common sense. Omissions, by definition, are not inside the report.

But since you won't come out and say it after being asked six times, I'll be blunt.

Yes or no. Did you read the 9/11 Commission Report?