2286 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

redhen, on 16 January 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

So using your ananlogy,  show me the prints on the gun.

I already did.

rumsfelds prints are all over the change in defence procedure which lead to him disabling NORAD's defence response.

zeilkow's prints are all over the 911 commission coverup document, the conclusion of which contradicts his pre-911 document co-written with a cia director which laid out the whole thing.

it was impossible for rumsfeld to know the attacks were over, unless he had foreknowledge of the attacks.

it was impossible for the person who decided that bush stay at the school for 2 hours to know the school was safe unless they had foreknowledge of the attacks.

[Babe Ruth]

redhen, on 16 January 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

Well, it's not really my style. But given the lack of satisfactory answers to "who", I am forced to make up a Straw man argument. I know, that's wrong, but you tell me "who" they are?



It's a valid statement, and is comprehensible. But taken together as a syllogism, it's nonsensical;

It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. p1
the story doesn't add up (intermediate conclusion)

Thus, 911 was an inside job (main conclusion)


“Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form”


  - Immanuel Kant

Consider this sir: just exactly HOW am I supposed to know whodunnit?  Are you accusing me of being in on it?  Your correct syllogistic form seems to come up with some pretty silly questions.

[Babe Ruth]

pallidin, on 16 January 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

So you are just speculating.

Yes Pallidin, as I have said many many times since day 1, I am just speculating.  I'm thrilled we've reached that point in comprehension!

[redhen]

Babe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

No, it is not conclusive proof because agencies such as CIA and Mossad do not leave conclusive proof.

Never? You need to qualify such statements. After the 1972 Munich Olympic game massacre, Mossad went on a revenge spree. Things did not always go as planned though. Some went to Norway to hunt down a terrorist, but they ended shooting the wrong guy. "Most of the Mossad team were captured and convicted of complicity in the killing by the Norwegian justice system, in a major blow to the intelligence agency's reputation."   http://en.wikipedia....lehammer_affair

Quote

They are masters of deception.

Hmm, yeah, when they're not blowing their cover and executing the wrong people.

Quote

But it certainly makes a very very very strong circumstantial case.

No, in order to have a strong argument, I would think that over 50% of your premises must be true, under 50% would be a weak argument.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Yes Pallidin, as I have said many many times since day 1, I am just speculating.  I'm thrilled we've reached that point in comprehension!

Just like when you said that no Boeings were responsible for the crash at the Pentagon and near Shanksville despite the fact that American Airlines and United Airliners reported the loss of their aircraft at those crash sites.

[redhen]

Little Fish, on 16 January 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

rumsfelds prints are all over the change in defence procedure which lead to him disabling NORAD's defence response.

I'll accept that.

Quote

zeilkow's prints are all over the 911 commission coverup document,

Well, he was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, no surprise there.

Quote

the conclusion of which contradicts his pre-911 document co-written with a cia director which laid out the whole thing.

How so ?

Quote

it was impossible for rumsfeld to know the attacks were over, unless he had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Why, was he helping someone onto a stretcher too? I'm not following you here?

Quote

it was impossible for the person who decided that bush stay at the school for 2 hours to know the school was safe unless they had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Is it not possible that Bush was advised to leave but he refused? If it's not possible, explain.

[redhen]

Babe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Consider this sir: just exactly HOW am I supposed to know whodunnit?  Are you accusing me of being in on it?  Your correct syllogistic form seems to come up with some pretty silly questions.

Ok you're not a truther, you said you don't know the specifics, you just have a hard time accepting some of the inconsistencies and anomalies. That's fine.

This thread was aimed at truthers, those who believe they have a justified true belief (aka knowledge) that 911 was an inside job.

Thanks anyways.

[Babe Ruth]

redhen, on 16 January 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Ok you're not a truther, you said you don't know the specifics, you just have a hard time accepting some of the inconsistencies and anomalies. That's fine.

This thread was aimed at truthers, those who believe they have a justified true belief (aka knowledge) that 911 was an inside job.

Thanks anyways.

You're welcome.

But I think your definition, connotation, I know, of "truther" is incomplete.  I see a truther, at least within the context of the events of 11 September, as being one who merely seeks the truth.  He or she does not assert that only he knows the truth, or that he knows the truth at all.

Merely, he is seeking the truth.

[redhen]

Babe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

But I think your definition, connotation, I know, of "truther" is incomplete.  I see a truther, at least within the context of the events of 11 September, as being one who merely seeks the truth.  He or she does not assert that only he knows the truth, or that he knows the truth at all.

Merely, he is seeking the truth.

Granted, it's possible. so there's different subsets of truthers. Don't make me start drawing Venn diagrams now.
But still, there seems to be an awful lot of people who profess to know, and want to share it a lot, with conviction.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 16 January 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

joc said scramble, and you talk about shootdown. deception noted.

It doesn't matter. The F-16s out of Andrew AFB were not even armed and the only action they could have taken was to ram the aircraft, but in the absence of a shootdown order, that was not going to happen.

As it was, the pilots were in identification mode only and not authorized to shoot down an airliner before United 93 crashed and once again, an F-15 pilot said that even if he did intercept an airliner, he would not have shot it down.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 16 January 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

I already did.

rumsfelds prints are all over the change in defence procedure which lead to him disabling NORAD's defence response.

What is that suppose to imply?

[Little Fish]

redhen, on 16 January 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

I'll accept that.

great, so you agree this is prima facie, so why was this covered up by the 911 commission?

Quote

Well, he was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, no surprise there. how so ?

I already told you.
zelikow (with the cfr and the cia) wrote the document "imagining the transforming event", it was zelikow who also primarily wrote the 911 commission report which concluded "911 was a failure of imagination", so they imagined it and failed to imagine it, all at the same time, so the 911 commission report was a coverup.

Quote

Why, was he helping someone onto a stretcher too? I'm not following you here?

I already told you.
Rumsfeld was the defence secretary.
Rumsfeld was helping stretcher the injured on the pentagon lawn.
Rumsfeld was in his office on the opposite side of the pentagon to the plane strike (a very large buildiing).
Rumsfeld took the time to travel from one side of the building to the other and then proceed to help the injured.
Rumsfeld was therefore not available during that period to give approval for any requests of scramble (and maybe even longer since his whereabouts were unknown previous to this period).
Rumsfeld knew that he had to be available to give approval of scramble orders because he was the one who changed the procedure to require his approval for scramble orders, so he cut himself out of the loop knowing his being accessible was essential for a military response. if this was a surprise attack then rumsfeld should have been available to respond to the approval requests, not involving himself with first aid duties.

Quote

Is it not possible that Bush was advised to leave but he refused? If it's not possible, explain.

of course anything is possible but there's no evidence. he sat in the chair for at least seven minutes after the second crash without saying anything to anyone and without anyone saying anything to him. whether bush made the decision to stay or whether someone else made the decision to stay, the decision to stay is not consistent with the security threat, unless it was known the school was not to be a target.

"The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [Bush] away.” The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”
http://www.globalres...-classroom/8555

so once again we see a departure from long standing standard procedure.

Edited by Little Fish, 17 January 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

No job, No Inside Job, Nada ! Got not a foot to stand on in this regards !

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 17 January 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:

I already told you. Rumsfeld was the defence secretary.

Yes, he was.

Quote

Rumsfeld was helping stretcher the injured on the pentagon lawn.
Rumsfeld was in his office on the opposite side of the pentagon to the plane strike (a very large buildiing).
Rumsfeld took the time to travel from one side of the building to the other and then proceed to help the injured.

In other words, Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon on the day the Pentagon was attacked and not miles away hiding in a bunker.

Quote

Rumsfeld knew that he had to be available to give approval of scramble orders because he was the one who changed the procedure to require his approval for scramble orders, so he cut himself out of the loop knowing his being accessible was essential for a military response.

The only response the military could have provided at the time the Pentagon was attacked was to simply watch since there was no shoot down order, which only came later from the President of the United States and passed down the chain of command, and remember, Rumsfeld had no such authority beforehand.

Quote

if this was a surprise attack then rumsfeld should have been available to respond to the approval requests, not involving himself with first aid duties.

American Airlines didn't say a thing about participating in a surprised attack on the Pentagon. After all, it was its B-757 that crashed into the Pentagon. Are you now  implicating American Airlines in the attack on the Pentagon?

[skyeagle409]

DONTEATUS, on 17 January 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

No job, No Inside Job, Nada ! Got not a foot to stand on in this regards !

It is amazing that there some folks, who will simply pull things out of thin air and concoct conspiracy theories with nothing viable to backup their theories. They seem to think that all Air Force fighter pilots are trained in air defense procedures and familiar with NORAD's protocol, which is not the case at all.