| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Just what Is an "independent commission" anyway? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 12 2008, 11:47 AM (926 Views) | |
| GoodOlDave | Jul 12 2008, 11:47 AM Post #1 |
|
All right, I'll be perfectly honest; I find the credibility of you supposed "truthers" suspect because most if not all of the claims you espouse are so preposterously convoluted as to be completely unworkable in reality. Not only is it impossible to rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions without leaving gigantic evidence trails or without the occupants noticing, such a stunt would be utterly beyond the capabilities of a gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels. Don't even get me started on cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon. This is neither here nor there. What I'd like to know is, just what would make an independent commission independent enough that you'd ever accept their findings? To be qualified in the technical fields needed for such an investigation, and to have security clearance to access sensitive gov't information, it necessarily means the investigator would have professional and/or educational connections to the gov't in some form or another which would disqualify them as being independent right there. It seems to me that you're deliberately setting up your criteria to be so untenably strict that it can never be met, which in turn, gives you license to gripe about your conspiracies some more. So, what is an "independent" investigation, anyway? |
 |
 
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Jul 12 2008, 12:56 PM Post #2 |
|
Since you already know so much, why don't you tell us? |
|
|
| Avenger | Jul 12 2008, 03:20 PM Post #3 |
|
If I was a burglar, I would probably not try to rob a house in broad daylight while the occupants are there eating lunch. I'd probably wait til everybody's gone. Preferably at night.
And yet the US still manages to be a super power with a technologically advanced military. |
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 13 2008, 12:23 PM Post #4 |
|
That would certainly work if you were robbing a house, but the towers weren't houses, they were skyscrapers, and they were huge. Those things had tens of thousands of people in them, and there were two of them. In your analogy it would either take years and years to "rob" them, or, there were tens of thousands of "robbers". All during this time, none of the "homeowners" nor the "police" would ever notice that belongings were missing, drawers were overturned, nor any suspicious people hanging around. This is too much of a bending of believability to take it seriously. Heck, Bush can't even out a CIA agent without hordes of journalists tracing it back to him. If you actually had actual hard evidence of these theories concerning controlled demolitions, energy beams from outer space, or whatever, that would be one thing, but when you have to rely on unrealistic analogies like this all you're doing is sweeping gigantic inconvenient details you don't want to deal with under the rug to make unrealistic theories a little easier to swallow. The goal of an independent investigation is to find out the truth regardless of what it is, not to favor one theory over another, or so I've been told. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Jul 13 2008, 05:09 PM Post #5 |
|
The thing about office buildings is that most people tend to get off from work around the same time.
Never said Bush planted explosives.
Inconvenient details? You actually think I WANT to believe this stuff? I used to believe the official story. When I first heard this stuff about 9/11 being an inside job, I thought it was the dumbest thing I ever heard. Until I actually looked into it. So what's my alternative? To wait around for some expert to offer a plausible explanation for why two 110 story buildings exploded from the top down? Since when do steel buildings disintegrate? Since when does a 47 story building drop virtually straight down at a rate of more than 6 floors per story? Whenever you find yourself walking past a six story building, try imagine it dropping into a pile of rubble in just one second. Honestly, I really want you to do that. Count one second by saying One Mississippi. See if you can imagine it dropping that fast. I would like just one expert to explain how that happens. I don't think that's too much to ask. I also don't think it's too much to ask how office fires can melt steel or iron. Edited by Avenger, Jul 13 2008, 05:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 14 2008, 03:42 PM Post #6 |
|
We state facts. It's not our problem if you can't understand how they fit with "reality". Perhaps it is your view of reality which is convoluted?
Scott Forbes, a worker for one of the financial firms in one of the towers, is one of the only live witnesses to a unprecidented power down the weekend prior to 9/11, where all security was shut off and things were being rewired. Scott FOrbes survived because he was given the day off in lieu of his work over the weekend. He could see the towers from his apartment on 9/11. When he saw the first one explode, he immediately knew that it must have had something to do with the power down a few days prior. Is he a conspiracy theorist, or a witness to a conspiracy? Remember, there is a clear difference. Perhaps all of the work was not done on that day alone, but this was probably when it was finished up. Plenty of witnesses have reported large amounts of dust and debris around the ubildings prior to 9/11 as if some kind of major construction project was underway. Maintenance floors which were unoccupied had loud drilling and constuction related sounds in the days before 9/11 as well. Something major was happening there, and it certainly didn't go unnoticed, except by those who refuse to research these things.
That is one suggestion about what COULD have happened. What is it about so-called "skeptics" who come here and don't understand the difference between suggestiong a thing as a possibility, vs. actually stating that something was absolutely, 100% true. Loose Change sets out to reveal the lies in the official story, not to answer what did happen. We weren't there. We don't have access to the physical evidence, etc.... so why do you specifically expect us to know?
To start out, at least don't let the current administration deliberately create a white-wash by selecting their best buddies and other white-wash commission members to be in your new commission. Here's the sequence of events for you. Bush prepared for war in afghanistan. Then 9/11 happened. Then Colin Powell and Blair promised a white paper explaining to the world how the US decided that Osama did it, and why Afghanistan should be invaded. Then the family members started the 9/11 Truth Movement by asking all of these tough questions of the administration, but getting zero response. Bush refused to form a commission at all. There would be no investigation of any kind. Clearly bush has shown his reservations about anyone looking into 9/11, including his own people who will likely support his official story. Family members lobby congress and the President for an investigations, where their questions would be answered. They still refuse. The family members go to the media, and because of the emotional story involved, some media outlets pick up the story and the resulting pressure due to the compassion of average citizens, pushes congress to pass a resolution to support a commission, but they let bush appoint it. Then BUsh appoints Henry Kissinger, Mr. Iran Contra scandal, as head of the commission. The family members are outraged, and demand he is replaced. So they make the head of the commission Zelikow. He's not much better than Kissinger, as he has co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice and worked closely with other Bush admin officials. Then the commission begins to investigate. Members resign their seats on the commission because they feel it will be a white-wash. They were right. The commission demands that Bush and CHeney appear under oath. They refuse. Then, after much public pressure, Bush and Cheney agree to appear, but not under any sort of oath (for those who don't understand, that's so they could lie and get away with it), and only if they met together (so their stories agreed with each other) in private (so that the public would not hear what they said and disassemble it) and finally, only before a few members of the commission, who were the biggest admin insiders, and no notes were allowed to leave the room, detailing any points about the conversation. We really don't know if Bush or Cheney gave any testimony a bout 9/11 at all. They could very well just as easily just discussed the finer points of pigeon hunting, for all we know. Then when the commission releases its report, the nation is intrigued, but finds many questions unanswered. The families insist that 70% of their questions were not even addressed, let alone answered, by the commission or its report. Much of the most admin-damning testimony given to the commission was ignored by the commission's report. Kean and Hamilton write a book where they state that the commission was compromised, and that they knowingly allowed false testimony from the Bush administration.
That's absolutely false. We want the other 70% of the questions that the families still have, and still voice concern over, to be answered. The families want a new investigation. That should be reason enough. We want an investigation which does not behave in the manner described in my crude timeline above. It does not need to be free of government employees. It just needs to be fully transparent and forthcoming, willing to listen to all kinds of people, not just hand-selected pro-official-story pundits and "experts". |
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 15 2008, 01:56 PM Post #7 |
|
[/quote]
I'm not certain what you're implying here with this. The planes hit before 9:00 so most people hadn't shown up for work yet. Even then, the buildings stood long enough for many of the occupants to escape, so out of the approx 25,000 people that worked at the south tower, only some 600 people trapped above the crash area were killed. In short, some 39 out of 40 people that worked at the south tower survived the south tower attack. Doesn't it seem odd to you that out of all those tens of thousands of people that survived, only -one- can recall anything about a power down? You say that you state facts. How do you reconcile this fact?
All right, fine. Give me an example. The only "outstanding questions" I've ever seen aren't from the 9/11 families, but from the conspriacy theorists who have no connection to the 9/11 attack in any way. Case in point is David Ray Griffin, whose list of "unanswered questions" are all questions based on unproven premises (I.E. missile batteries around the Pentagon ) or are questions the commission never was set up to answer to begin with (I.E. the exact mechanics of the collapse).
You just contradicted yourself. The people who were directly involved and would have the pertinent information to testify about *are* according to you "pro-official-story pundits and experts". The Air Traffic controllers manning the radars that day, the pilots flying the fighter jets sent to intercept the hijacked flights, police and firefighters who were in the vicinity, etc, all contributed information that directly points to the very scenario the commission outlines. This is where the commission got it's outlines to begin with, and we know that from the gigantic bibliography in the back. It seems to me that your criteria for "all kinds of people we need to listen to" are specifically those who subscribe to your "inside job" conspriacy theory, rather than the credibility of the source of information. Case in point- the 9/11 commission states that New York Police Department helicopter pilots were flying eye level to the crash area in the WTC and they reported the steel beams were glowing red and looked like they were about to collapse...and 30 minutes later, they did. This testimony right there shows it really was the fires that caused the towers to collapse rather than any conspriacy, so tell me, why should we consider this testimony to be a lie? Do not get me wrong, I am fully in support of more investigations. We already know the Titanic sank by being hit by an iceberg but the continuing investigations into the sinking continuously turn up new and interesting details, so go ahead and have all the investigations you want...just as long as your goal isn't to strongarm the investigation into rubber stamping your conspriacy theories regardless of what the investigation actually show. Edited by GoodOlDave, Jul 15 2008, 01:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 15 2008, 06:45 PM Post #8 |
|
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html Edited by Headspin, Jul 15 2008, 06:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 16 2008, 09:38 AM Post #9 |
|
those would be witnesses, not investigators. if there is a murder, you don't rely on witnesses from both sides to be on the jury. 
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 16 2008, 09:43 AM Post #10 |
|
we don't need to reconcile facts. only opinions need to be reconciled against the facts. it just so happens that our opinions about 9/11 reconcile themselves very well with the facts at hand. I have bolded the part which shows there is no contradiction in my post. The result being that there must be other people who either do not realize the significance of the power down, or that they don't feel comfortable talking about it. |
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 16 2008, 11:04 AM Post #11 |
|
quote]http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html[/quote] Hmmm. This material is extremely old, from Feb of 2005, and I know at least a few of these questions have been answered already. I saw in the news somewhere that the supposed pipeline through Afghanistan never materialized- Karzai wants one to be built to bring in money but the place is too much of a basketcase for anyone to even think of building some expensive thing that would almost certainly be destroyed on a daily basis. Oil companies may be greedy as sin, but they're not stupid. Even still, none of these questions were things that the 9/11 commission were even set up to investigate. The report was to look into who attacked us and how they did it, not on Afghan pipelines. Yeah, I admit it would be interesting to learn more about some of these issues as it would be good to document the exact extent that these people who were supposedly protecting us were bumbling into walls and slipping on banana peels when the attack occurred, but I don't know what value having such answers would be to you youself. Your goal is to discover some secret evil gov't conspiracy, not to document gov't incompetencies, isn't it? Edited by GoodOlDave, Jul 16 2008, 11:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 16 2008, 04:07 PM Post #12 |
|
No, actually you do need to reconcile the facts, especially when your facts contradict other facts, becuase it means that one fact or the other is false. It is an undeniable fact that out of the 50,000 people who worked at the towers...not to mention the 70,000 or so tourists the center received every day...only one reported any power down. There are lots of unrealistic reasons for this, such as "all those hundred thousand people are too scared to mention anything" becuase that would necessarily include other 9/11 truthers like William Rodriguez, but the main realistic reasons why, as I see them, are either... a) he's lying, ...or, what I personally suspect is the case... b) he is being truthful, but his was the only testimony vague and lacking in any detail enough so that it could be used by the conspriacy theorists as a suitable vehicle for their innuendo dropping. If person A says "he saw strange people carrying in mysterious cables for reasons unknown" and person B says "he saw electricians from the XYZ power company installing new high voltage wiring under the supervision of building inspectors to conform with new building codes", the conspiracy theorists will always always always quote person A and ignore person B. They have to, otherwise they just refuted their own conspriacy theory. Even Loose Change has been known to pull this type of stunt. In one of their versions (the first one, I think) they showed footage of the second WTC crash from a vantage point that appears to be a mile away, and they "suggest" that light glinting off the wings were missiles firing into the WTC before the plane crashed into it. This claim is seductive, obviously, until you look at any of the 500 OTHER videos that were a lot closer than a mile off which showed no missiles being fired. The Loose Change producers certainly had to know that more video existed than the blurry mile away shot they used to assert that accusation. So, why did they do this? I do not know Dylan Avery so I cannot say what his motives were, but the fact remains that we need to hold the evidence from each side up to the same high level of critical analysis that we do the other becuase garbage is being introduced from all quarters. It's fallacy, not the truth, that fears critique, as Patrick Henry used to say. |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 16 2008, 05:07 PM Post #13 |
|
you stated you knew of NO UNANSWERED QUESTIONS asked by the 911 families, so i show you a site with hundreds of unanswered questions asked by the 911 families. your response was: which leaves a few less than HUNDREDS OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS asked by the 911 families. but let us compensate for the few questions that may have been answered with the many more questions that have since arisen. how can you move from a position of NOT KNOWING OF A SINGLE UNANSWERED QUESTION asked by the 911 families to discovering hundreds of such unanswered questions only to pretend that the questions were only concerning pipelines in Afghanistan, whereas in fact HUNDREDS OF THOSE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS have nothing to do with Afghanistan or oil pipelines. Yes, that is exactly the problem. 
|
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 16 2008, 06:04 PM Post #14 |
|
there is another person that I am aware of that confirmed the power down. On a video up on youtube, a guy in a Scottish kilt came up to Jason Bermas (I think, might have been Alex Jones) at ground zero and told him he worked in the towers and that a power down did occur on the weekend prior to 911. |
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 16 2008, 11:40 PM Post #15 |
|
You're missing the point entirely. There is zero evidence whatsoever that shows this power down was anything but what they claimed it was- a legitimate upgrade to the electrical system which was completely unrelated to the 9/11 attack. Even Scott Forbes states these technicians weren't trying to hide what they were doing and the Port Authority even announced they were coming. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means the only thing you're going on that it was anything but a legitimate upgrade to the electrical system is unsubstanciated speculation.
I'm not "pretending they all concerned pipelines". I'm stating the fact that these questions concerned topics that the 9/11 commission was never meant to document to begin with, and it's true- the commission was only meant to document who did it and how, not all these other side issues. The pipeline issue was one particular example. There are bunches of others in this list- why they sold the WTC steel to recyclers, why Bush stayed at the elementary school for as long as he did, why the Florida National guard was called up Sept 7, the progress of the upgrade of INS computers, whether there was a gun on flight 11, whose responsibility it was to keep the WTC up to fire code, what satillites were orbiting US airspace on 9/11, the names of the pilots sent to intercept the hijacked jets, etc etc etc. Do you want me to go through the entire list? This is neither here nor there, really. From what I'm seeing, these questions are meant with an eye to document the oversights and failings of the US gov't up to and during the 9/11 attack so that they don't happen again, rather than to document any gov't conspiracy. If we were to find out that, say, NORAD couldn't track flight 77 becuase it was flying over the Appalachean mountains and there was too much ground interference to see them on radar, and if we find out that, say noone could be picked up from the WTC roof because updrafts at that height would have smashed any helicopter that attempted to land, this would go a long way into preventing such things from happening again, certainly, but how does that help you with your conspriacies? Can you at least admit there is the possibility that you are misinterpreting gov't reluctance to accept blame for its shortcomings as a gov't coverup of intentional criminal activity? |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 17 2008, 04:22 AM Post #16 |
|
I am not missing the point at all, let alone "entirely". you sought to make the point the power down did not happen with this statement: After giving you witness corroboration of the unprecedented power down on the prior weekend, you change your "point" to be that there was nothing mysterious about the unprecedented power down: you are fumbling over your own points. Your point has now morphed into the realm of absurdity - the power down in itself is suspicious because it occured two days before 911 and it was unprecedented. This is the level of absurdity you are stating - "There is no evidence that the gunsmoke coming from the Grassey Knoll and the man subsequently seen running away from the Grassey Knoll had anything to do with JFK's assassination". Edited by Headspin, Jul 17 2008, 04:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 17 2008, 04:42 AM Post #17 |
|
Rubbish. "chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." http://www.9-11commission.gov/ You also ignore the fact that it was only because the 911 families pressed for an investigation that we got a white-wash "setup to fail" that was the 911 commission. |
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 20 2008, 12:29 PM Post #18 |
|
Good grief, it it really your aim to promote your conspiracy claims by twisting my words around? I SAID, and I will quote my actual post so you cannot alter it in any way... "b) he is being truthful, but his was the only testimony vague and lacking in any detail enough so that it could be used by the conspriacy theorists as a suitable vehicle for their innuendo dropping. If person A says "he saw strange people carrying in mysterious cables for reasons unknown" and person B says "he saw electricians from the XYZ power company installing new high voltage wiring under the supervision of building inspectors to conform with new building codes", the conspiracy theorists will always always always quote person A and ignore person B. They have to, otherwise they just refuted their own conspriacy theory." I never refuted there were powerdowns. I refute the self-serving way the conspriacy theorists' portray the events of the powerdown as it actually happened becuase it is not in their best interests to portray the events objectively. There were probably thousands of people who could state there were powerdowns, but everyone else EXCEPT Scott Forbes could provide significant details of the event- the company that did the work, the exact work that was being done, actual names, etc- which showed it was legitimate maintenance. It's blatantly obvious that the conspriacy theorists want to prove there was some secret conspriacy, so out of all the testimony available to them concerning the powerdown they naturally zero in exclusively on Scott Forbes' ONE testimony becuase it is vague and featureless enough to be used to promote their conspriacy innuendo. To support the point I even used an example where the Loose Change producers intentionally chose, out of the hundreds of crystal clear videos available to them taken from every distance and at every angle, the ONE far away, grainy video that kinda-sorta looks like missiles were launched from the jetliner. Comparing their blurry, grainy video to any one of the other available videos will show right away that the missles being launched were really sunlight reflecting off the wings, but they didn't. They obviously wanted to convince people of their bogus missile launch claims and so they intentionally refused to do so. I will post that discussion again, if you so desire. You may argue and twist my words to your heart's content, but at the end of the day it's still been proven time after time after time that the conspriacy theorists' goal isn't to show us the facts. It's to convince people that there was a conspiracy to stage the 9/11 attack regardless of what the facts actually show, and their staged and manipulated presentation of the WTC powerdown and the false analysis of the video of the jet liners...not to mention, your misrepresenting my posts in an attempt to put words in my mouth... are prime examples. I cannot explain my meaning any more clearly than this.
You should be interested to know then that at the company I work for I do literally the same computer systems work Scott Forbes does for his, and my building had the exact same "unprecedented" power outage due to maintenance to the building's power system that the WTC apparently did. I had to bring the systems down, bring them back up, and check them out exactly like Scott Forbes did...and yes, they did it on a weekend, when the building would be mostly empty and the impact on the tenants would be minimal. In the next few months' I'll need to do it again when they begin maintenance on one of our branch offices. Anyone who claims that bringing the power down for maintnenace to the building power system is "unprecedented" and "suspicious", especially in a building that was almost 30 years old like the WTC was, has no idea what they're talking about. Do not even think of arguing with me on this.
Thank you, that brings up another excellent point, actually. I have chatted with many, many, MANY conspriacy theorists concerning the 9/11 attack, and I can't say I've met one who did not subscribe to one or more of a whole smorgasbord of OTHER conspriacies- the moon landing being faked, JFK being assasinated by LBJ/CIA/FBI/Mossad/whoever, AIDS being a CIA invention to murder all the black people in Africa, secret societies like Illuminati/Masons/Satan worshippers/Jews/etc controlling the world, or what have you. I suppose it comes as no surprise that the instinctive reaction of people who view the world in this way would naturally be to see the 9/11 attack as a conspriacy, too...but this has nothing to do with there actually being any conspriacy. It has to do with filling some personal inner need to believe in secret conspriacies whether they're actually there or not. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, as the saying goes. |
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 20 2008, 12:36 PM Post #19 |
|
Without meaning to, you only wound up proving my point. Where in this mission statement does it cover, "pipelines in Afghanistan", "why they sold the WTC steel to recyclers" or even "Whose responsibility to keep the WTC up to fire code"? You're one of those types of people who likes to argue simply for the sake of arguing, aren't you? |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 20 2008, 02:15 PM Post #20 |
|
those are the questions asked by the 911 family members seeking answers. http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html I personally think they have every right in a free and moral society to ask those questions and demand proper answers. I do not see them as people "who like to argue simply for the sake of arguing." |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 20 2008, 05:06 PM Post #21 |
|
I used your words, I didn't twist them, I'm not responsible for what you say and your lack of clarity. re-read your post #7 the bit that says this "Doesn't it seem odd to you that out of all those tens of thousands of people that survived, only -one- can recall anything about a power down?" this has nothiong to do with evidence or logic - "probably thousands that could state actual names etc". You are just making stuff up to fit your theory. The important evidence is that there was a reported power down. you are seeking to detract by moving the emphasis from this important evidence to an irrelevant issue. This is the work of someone who wants to obfuscate an issue. It matters not whether someone's description reported "electrians" or "men" with cables, the pertinent fact is that re-cabling was reported. Your initial claim in post#1 was "it is impossible to rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions....without the occupants noticing". In order to prove this claim false, it is only necessary to show a single possibilty of how it might have been done. An electrical powerdown provides for such a possibilty which would shut down security cameras, elevators and such like, it would also enable movement of equipment and access to ceiling and floor voids under the guise of this re-cabling operation. thus your claim of impossibility is proven false. I am not interested in what you claim to be, anyone can anonymously claim to be anybody, only evidence and logic will prove your point. "don't even think of arguing with me on on this" = "I know fuck all about this". Scott Forbes claims this is the first ever powerdown, that would be the definition of "unprecedented". What you are saying is that there is no evidence the shell casings found next to the (hypothetical) body were used in the shooting. what you want to magic away is that the shell casings (just like the powerdowns) ARE the evidence. Edited by Headspin, Jul 20 2008, 05:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 21 2008, 01:45 PM Post #22 |
|
I know what I said, and it's still a valid question. *Isn't* it odd that out of tens of thousands of people, only one person can recall anything about a power down? I told you how I could explain it, that Scott Forbes is the only person the conspiracy theorists are telling you about. They're concealing 99.99% of the rest of the other testimony concerning a powerdown becuase it contradicts what the conspriacy theorists are trying to convince people to believe. I even gave you an example of where Loose Change had been caught red handed pulling this exact type of stunt, to show you they are certainly willing and capable of doing so. How do you explain it? You never answered the question.
Why exactly is it pertinent that recabling was reported? Presuming you're attempting to drop innuendo here that this time period was used to sabotage the building in some way, you ignore the obvious fact it would require a long long LONG time, months and months in fact, to do whatever they were doing for a building that was as huge as the WTC, more so, since they would need to perform extra work in order to make sure their sabotage would remain concealed. You also ignore the obvious fact that any such maintenance could not be done without the explicit approval and supervision of the New York Port Authority, who would have been right there watching them perform the work. You also ignore the obvious fact that Sept 11 was on a Tuesday, so the tenents and personnel would have had all Monday to notice anything unusual. You also ignore the obvious fact that Scott Forbes himself admits the workmen weren't acting suspicious nor were they attempting to hide their activities in any way. You also ignore the obvious fact that Scott Forbes himself admits it was a *partial* power down, from the 50th floor up, and it was exclusively the south tower. In the lower half of the south tower and in the entire north tower was business as usual. Thus, the only one attempting to obfuscate the issue here is you becuase your own facts show it was too much out in the open and too small of a scale to have been anything but legitimate maintenance. You're selectively choosing and discarding specific details of the event as they suit your own personal political agenda, and you only wound up proving the point I've been making to begin with.
Sorry but I'm not falling for your poorly crafted analogies. Your "shell casings" as related to the WTC wouldn't be the powerdown. The powerdown would be like the Zapruder film- something that you can see whatever you want to see in it, if you stare at it and manipulate it long enough. "Shell casings" would be remains of actual explosives used to bring the towers down- det cord, timers, unexploded ordnance, etc- like there'd be in every *other* building brought down by explosives. You know full well no such hard evidence was ever found becuase if there was it would be broadcasted on every conspriacy website in existence. FYI the shell casings from the JFK assassination *were* found. They were found on the sixth floor of the book depository, near the window where Oswald was supposed to have fired from, so your analogy fails there too. ...and the conspiracy theorists actually wonder why they're having such a hard time convincing others of their claims. It's becuase instead of actually discussing the facts they keep scratching the bottom of the barrel with innuendo, distorting the facts to suit their agenda, and using analogies which make no sense, and trying to get a straight answer out of them on anything is akin to trying to nail jam to the wall. Case in point- I asked you this before and you didn't answer, so here it is again: in the commission report, NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact area on the WTC reported that the steel beams were glowing red and looked like they were about to collapse, and one half hour later, they did. I'm assuming you believe this is a lie, so why is this a lie?
Well, if the conspriacy theorists don't require evidence or logic to back up their theories then neither do I. |
|
|
|
| GoodOlDave | Jul 21 2008, 02:06 PM Post #23 |
|
Good grief, Headspin, stop it already. I didn't say they were arguing for the sake of arguing. I said *you* were arguing for the sake of arguing. I posted the commission was set up to find out who attacked us and how they did it and you claimed it was "rubbish", but all you did is point out what the commission documented IN ADDITION TO who attacked us and how they did it. Yes, the commission documented what the gov'ts response was during the 9/11 attack IN ADDITION TO who attacked us and how they did it, and yes, the commission documented what steps need to be taken to make sure it doesn't happen again IN ADDITION TO who attacked us and how they did it, but even so it still doesn't mean they were set up to cover pipelines in Afghanistan or who was responsible for keeing the WTC up to fire code. So what in any of my post was "rubbish", exactly? You just don't want to admit when you're wrong, do you? |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 21 2008, 03:55 PM Post #24 |
|
war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength unprecedented electrical powerdowns happened every weekend at the wtc 2 + 2 = 5 - (a bad thought) |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Jul 21 2008, 09:32 PM Post #25 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
12:07 PM Nov 23