348 replies to this topic

[quillius]

preacherman76, on 14 December 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

Im not telling you want to believe. From my point of view, there is enough evidence to suggest that a new independent investigation should be conducted though.

I think that is a fair enough stance  

[dekker87]

preacherman76, on 14 December 2010 - 12:42 PM, said:

Why believe in the officail story? many of the people who conducted the investigation dont.

like who!?

it's laughable that so many people refuse to believe the truth.

[preacherman76]

dekker87, on 16 December 2010 - 02:01 PM, said:

like who!?

it's laughable that so many people refuse to believe the truth.

Meet Some members of the 9/11 commission and listen to what they have to say.

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done? 9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."

Edited by preacherman76, 17 December 2010 - 02:47 PM.

[flyingswan]

preacherman76, on 17 December 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

Meet Some members of the 9/11 commission and listen to what they have to say.

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

As a matter of interest, what exactly does Farmer claim to be the truth?  Is it the conspiracy theory that you have supported on this forum or is it something else?

[preacherman76]

flyingswan, on 17 December 2010 - 02:57 PM, said:

As a matter of interest, what exactly does Farmer claim to be the truth?  Is it the conspiracy theory that you have supported on this forum or is it something else?

Mr Farmer claims that the truth is, that a criminal investigation needs to take place. In which he and others requested, but were denied.

[flyingswan]

preacherman76, on 17 December 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

Mr Farmer claims that the truth is, that a criminal investigation needs to take place. In which he and others requested, but were denied.

In other words, no, he doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

[preacherman76]

He, and others claim that they were lied to through out the investigation. That the investigation "was almost completly untrue" When asked for the reasources to find out why they had been lied to again, they were denied.

[preacherman76]

flyingswan, on 17 December 2010 - 03:01 PM, said:

In other words, no, he doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

He doesnt make claim to any theory, most certainly and without a doubt, including yours.

[flyingswan]

preacherman76, on 17 December 2010 - 03:03 PM, said:

He doesnt make claim to any theory, most certainly and without a doubt, including yours.

So the chain of logic that you are attempting to set up, that government is lying therefore it was an inside job, is not supported by the very man who says the government is lying.

[flyingswan]

preacherman76, on 17 December 2010 - 03:02 PM, said:

He, and others claim that they were lied to through out the investigation. That the investigation "was almost completly untrue" When asked for the reasources to find out why they had been lied to again, they were denied.

I've just googled this interview he gave after his book came out:
http://911reports.wo...friedman-91109/

Here are a few things he says that shows what he actually believes, ie the government lied to cover up incompetance, not to conceal an inside job:

I think there was an effort to, um, uh, to make the government look ‘better’ than it was that day- to make the national command structure, um, seem, uh, like it was more in control than it was in those critical moments...

Well, let me just say that I think the [911 Commission] report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11.

...I think if there’s a villain in the book, other than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who are- we can never forget are the principal villains, but it’s- it’s bureaucracy itself.

...I know there’s been a lot of speculation about, um, about, you know- w-whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon- I can assure you that it did.

Edited by flyingswan, 17 December 2010 - 03:30 PM.

[preacherman76]

flyingswan, on 17 December 2010 - 03:10 PM, said:

So the chain of logic that you are attempting to set up, that government is lying therefore it was an inside job, is not supported by the very man who says the government is lying.

No, my chain of logic is to say that once a person, or a government, or what ever the case maybe, is proven beyond any doubt to have lied then are not trust worthy. This can only lead people to one logical conclusion. Of course that is the official story, given to us by known liar's, should not be trusted.

Think about it. If 11 foriegn highjackers crashed planes on our soil, in a act of terrorism, for all the world to see, and its just as cut and dry as that, then what is there to lie about? Thier failure to respond??? Well thats evident to anyone who turned on the TV or radio that day.

Mr Farmer isnt in a possition to tell us his opinion. He is a investigator. He holds the responcibility to bring the American people the truth, through what he has found in his investigation. He doesnt have the convenience that I have to speculate, or to think out side the box. And he has told us that the US government refuses to let him do the job they hired him to do. People who believe "the officail story" dont believe in the truth,cause the very people who told you the story claim it isnt true.

Add this to a LONG list of reasons not to believe this government regarding 9/11, I find it more than justified to question why. And to call for a new independant investigation.

[preacherman76]

flyingswan, on 17 December 2010 - 03:27 PM, said:

I've just googled this interview he gave after his book came out:
http://911reports.wo...friedman-91109/

Here are a few things he says that shows what he actually believes, ie not an inside job:

I think there was an effort to, um, uh, to make the government look ‘better’ than it was that day- to make the national command structure, um, seem, uh, like it was more in control than it was in those critical moments...

Well, let me just say that I think the [911 Commission] report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11.

...I think if there’s a villain in the book, other than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who are- we can never forget are the principal villains, but it’s- it’s bureaucracy itself.

...I know there’s been a lot of speculation about, um, about, you know- w-whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon- I can assure you that it did.

Alot of "um's" there.  Besides it gets way better then this. He isnt the only commissioner who let the cat outta the bag. Since you are so resourceful, I'll let you find them yourself.

[flyingswan]

preacherman76, on 17 December 2010 - 03:31 PM, said:

Alot of "um's" there.  

So you can do a live interview and be word perfect?

Quote

Besides it gets way better then this. He isnt the only commissioner who let the cat outta the bag. Since you are so resourceful, I'll let you find them yourself.

Why should I do your work for you?  If you want to try and find commissioners who think it was an inside job rather than a cover-up of incompetance, go ahead.

[flyingswan]

preacherman76, on 17 December 2010 - 03:28 PM, said:

No, my chain of logic is to say that once a person, or a government, or what ever the case maybe, is proven beyond any doubt to have lied then are not trust worthy. This can only lead people to one logical conclusion. Of course that is the official story, given to us by known liar's, should not be trusted.

"Not be trusted" is a very long way from "responsible for an inside job".  By your logic, everyone who has ever strayed from the truth should be held responsible for whatever crime you care to pin on them.

[preacherman76]

flyingswan, on 18 December 2010 - 10:58 AM, said:

"Not be trusted" is a very long way from "responsible for an inside job".  By your logic, everyone who has ever strayed from the truth should be held responsible for whatever crime you care to pin on them.

I wasnt talking about a inside job. I was responding to the person who said it was laughable I didnt believe the officail story. Even when the officail story is a known lie. I didnt come to this thread to rehash the same old arguments. I just wanted to show there is more then enough reason to believe that another investigation should take place.

Then again, like anyone would do, I have to question the motives of a government who wouldnt even allow the commission to interview the landlord of 2 of the highjackers. That seems terribly strange to me.