For Eots and Other 'Truthers'

[Annie]

This is very simple eots. If you want us to allow for the idea that there was a cover up of some type, then it is only fair that allow for the fact that there wasnt one. When you take away the events of 9/11 it is very easy to see people's agendas. I watched your YouTube link, and half the loose hange arfuments were the administration this and the administration that. This glaringly revealed their agenda. You say that it is Kathianne, myself and others that are not interested in the truth, yet it is painfully obvious that it is the other way around. If becomes blatently obvious that this was a cover up than I will except that. It isnt like I'm some big fanboy of the Federal government.

The question is can you answer the reverse question honestly yourself? Do you desperatly need to be right about this? Could you acccept it if the truth was incontravertibaly revealed that there was no cover up? Are you really as objective as you say you are? Are the conspiracy theorists on your you tube link objective? The answer to all of these questions are most likely No.

You will never find the truth if you don't find the truth about yourself first.

And there is a vast difference between a 'cover up' and actually planning and participating in the events.

 

[LOki]

wtf dont you understand the controlled media attempts to link x military .government agents and scholars that have serious questions about 911 with the anti war movement .Jane Fonda the far left ,big foot belivers ect..its a simplistic mind control technique to get the sheeple to associate 911 truth with tinfoil hats and twilight zone music and with some people its like taking candy from a baby

I certainly don't understand your abstractionist use of punctuation, non-sequitur, and run-on sentence structure.

 

[eots]

I certainly don't understand your abstractionist use of punctuation, non-sequitur, and run-on sentence structure.

yes... I am certain you do

 

[eots]

And there is a vast difference between a 'cover up' and actually planning and participating in the events.

to have cover up.. there must be something to cover up

there needs to be a real investigation ,a release of all evidence ,and protection and anonymity given to wittinesses

 

[Annie]

to have cover up.. there must be something to cover up

there needs to be a real investigation ,a release of all evidence ,and protection and anonymity given to wittinesses

As you stated something like 'able danger' might be something that would be 'covered up'. Something that should have been long ago addressed, but not what you are trying to make it.

 

[eots]

more from the tin foil hat crew....

Major Douglas Rokke
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career


Article 8/19/05: Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile." http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf


will someone get this guy a subscrption to popular mechanics already...jezzz


.


Morgan Reynolds, PhD – Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001 - 2002. Former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Professor Emeritus, Economics, Texas A&M University

Video 6/2/06: "I first began to suspect that 9/11 was in inside job when the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded Iraq. … We can prove that the government’s story is false." http://video.goo


Essay 6/9/05: "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely [to] prove to be sound



Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the

second plane to hit the WTC

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com


Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com


Andreas von Buelow, PhD – Former State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Defense of West Germany. Former Minister of Research and Technology. Member of Bundestag (Parliament) 1969 - 1994



Video 5/6/06: "The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one." http://video.google.com


Article/Interview 1/13/02: "The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry." http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow



DONT YOU FIND IT ODD THESE PEOPLE CANT GET MORE 5 MINS OF AIR TIME ON FOX OR CNN ?

 

[eots]

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
yellow journalism


Inflammatory, irresponsible reporting by newspapers. The phrase arose during the 1890s, when some American newspapers, particularly those run by William Randolph Hearst, worked to incite hatred of Spain, thereby contributing to the start of the Spanish-American War. Newspapers that practice yellow journalism are called yellow press.


[Chapter:] American History since 1865


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved




I would like to point out that popular mechanics is a Hearst owned company
its like when someone says look up stupid in the dictionary and your pictures there , well look up yellow journalism and guess who's pictures there ........

 

[Annie]

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
yellow journalism


Inflammatory, irresponsible reporting by newspapers. The phrase arose during the 1890s, when some American newspapers, particularly those run by William Randolph Hearst, worked to incite hatred of Spain, thereby contributing to the start of the Spanish-American War. Newspapers that practice yellow journalism are called yellow press.


[Chapter:] American History since 1865


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved




I would like to point out that popular mechanics is a Hearst owned company
its like when someone says look up stupid in the dictionary and your pictures there , well look up yellow journalism and guess who's pictures there ........

Did you know that Greg is owned and operated by both Hearst and Exxon? He's also a Mason. For each post you've made, another coin is added!

 

[eots]

I don't see how thats really relevant it is the dictionary definition of yellow journalism i didn't write it ,it is in all dictionary's ,whats the point

 

[Annie]

I don't see how thats really relevant it is the dictionary definition of yellow journalism i didn't write it ,it is in all dictionary's ,whats the point

Then again, it makes as much sense as introducing yellow journalism. So wtf?

 

[eots]

Then again, it makes as much sense as introducing yellow journalism. So wtf?

well it seems to be your preferred authority on 911 truth

 

[Annie]

well it seems to be you preferred authority on 911 truth

It could be that I preferred rationality, but whatever. This is your thread.

 

[eots]

-

Yeah not like all those irrational veterans, high ranking military people .or pilots, congressmen senators, CIA and FBI agents scholars ,PhD ,Md's

 

[Annie]

-

Yeah not like all those irrational veterans, high ranking military people .or pilots, congressmen senators, CIA and FBI agents scholars ,PhD ,Md's

Right, with their quotes for the most part with certain exceptions, being taken out of context. But hell, why give context, when it doesn't fit what you believe?

 

[eots]

Right, with their quotes for the most part with certain exceptions, being taken out of context. But hell, why give context, when it doesn't fit what you believe?

most of these statements are bold and direct enough that its pretty hard to take them out of context , however all the links are there to confirm context
nice try at the old spin tho..popular mechanics would be proud

 

[Annie]

most of these statements are bold and direct enough that its pretty hard to take them out of context , however all the links are there to confirm context
nice try at the old spin tho..popular mechanics would be proud

You are funny. You now have two threads, mess with any others and you will earn an infraction.

 

[Bern80]

Eots you have about the most transparent agenda I've seen in a while. And despite what you may claim, your agenda is not to find the truth. Your agenda is to attempt to show the corruption of the administration. You may not be able to see the difference in the two, but there is a major difference. Again I wonder how would answer some of the following questions or if you would even be able to answer them honestly

1. Would you be seeking the 'truth' so vehemntly if this had happened if Kerry were in office?

2. Are you a liberal or a conservative?

3. Could you believe it if the truth was you are wrong and what happened was exactley what has been widely reported as happening?

The evidence provided opposing your stance is simply more convincing then the evidnce for it at this point. But hey show me a debunking Popular Mechanics debunking article and I'll give it a read.

 

[theHawk]

I love hearing the theory that a cruise missle hit the Pentagon. Yea, the government in doing its 'pre-planned' attacks on the U.S. was going to fire a missle into a building and say it was an airplane...in broad daylight in a major metropolitian area - absolutely genius. Meanwhile Flt 77 and all the passengers on board simply vanished. My question is, if the 'government' was able to fly 2 airplanes into the WTC, why did they have to use a cruise missle for the Pentagon?

 

[NuclearWinter]

Of all the peculiarities, unanswered questions, and things that don't add up about the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the one aspect that keeps nagging at me revolves around our military's incredible lack of response to the hijackings of four airliners. Anyone who investigates this matter will soon find that the United States Air Force and the FAA both established procedures that have been in place for at least 25 years regarding planes that veer abnormally off course.

Specifically, the Federal law MANDATES that the Air Force must dispatch a plane to investigate why a certain craft has strayed from its predestined route. These interceptors are only allowed to shoot an airliner from the sky under orders from the President, but that doesn't negate that they are still required to investigate the situation in a timely manner.

And yet, on 9-11, NO ONE FOLLOWED ORDERS! Why? Who gave these orders? Plus, Washington, D.C. has the most restricted air space in the country, yet from 9:03 A.M., when the second tower was hit, to 9:47 A.M., when the Pentagon came under attack....when the Air Force KNEW that a jet was headed toward the Capitol, no planes were dispatched to intercept it. Who gave the orders for these planes to 'stand down', and, God forbid, were some even called back after they had taken off?

 

[Annie]

Of all the peculiarities, unanswered questions, and things that don't add up about the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the one aspect that keeps nagging at me revolves around our military's incredible lack of response to the hijackings of four airliners. Anyone who investigates this matter will soon find that the United States Air Force and the FAA both established procedures that have been in place for at least 25 years regarding planes that veer abnormally off course.

Specifically, the Federal law MANDATES that the Air Force must dispatch a plane to investigate why a certain craft has strayed from its predestined route. These interceptors are only allowed to shoot an airliner from the sky under orders from the President, but that doesn't negate that they are still required to investigate the situation in a timely manner.

And yet, on 9-11, NO ONE FOLLOWED ORDERS! Why? Who gave these orders? Plus, Washington, D.C. has the most restricted air space in the country, yet from 9:03 A.M., when the second tower was hit, to 9:47 A.M., when the Pentagon came under attack....when the Air Force KNEW that a jet was headed toward the Capitol, no planes were dispatched to intercept it. Who gave the orders for these planes to 'stand down', and, God forbid, were some even called back after they had taken off?

Moving this to eots thread. Treason by conspiracy doesn't fit.