Talking Turkey

[Babe Ruth]

Some people are allergic to the truth.

[skyeagle409]

how the hell do you think black ops get funded?

Taxpayers money! I am very sure that all of that money didn't come out of the wallets of the 'black ops' guys.

Edited October 19, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

some people literally cannot handle the truth.

That has been proven time after time with 9/11 conspiracist and I am still waiting for P4T to make corrections on their website because I know from experience that much of what they have posted is false.

[skyeagle409]

Some people are allergic to the truth.

Those within the 9/11 Truth Movement tend to distort the truth, which has been proven time after time after time.

[skyeagle409]

We're talking turkey Sky.

A pilot friend of mine went to work for AA after he got out of the Army. He told the story, and he was not making it up. He and the rest of us ideal young aviators were shocked to discover it. Kinda like losing one's virginity, if you get my drift.

What it is, you are trying to demonize the CIA in order to add sparks for the 9/11 attacks and besides, drug use in Vietnam was no secret.

Edited October 19, 2012 by skyeagle409

[+Liquid Gardens]

(Moved from Pentagon Video thread)

Ok, who do you think you’re kidding? I think you know exactly what I’m saying – your stall is clearly set out. I’ve seen it many times... the new member joins a discussion, claims to be objective (perhaps even fooling themselves)... it’s effective but never lasts long before their true/existing beliefs takeover. I’ve never seen anyone change their mind to any significant degree after committing to a position... they either have an open mind from the start or they don’t; they either have the ability to accept a 9/11 false flag or they don’t. Sorry but I don’t think you seriously entertain any of the evidence I present suggestive of an alternative to the official story, much less have the desire to add it all up – for you the challenge is to dispute/maintain your existing worldview and I now know which side of the fence you are going to sit by default every time. For this reason I feel comfortable bracketing you with faithful adherents of the official story. After all, you might only have known about the official theories of NIST and Bazant a few weeks ago but you do believe their conclusions, don’t you? I think you will fall in line with any part of the official story where it matters. Of course, and bearing in mind you certainly have not had chance to research those official theories in full or even go through the complete for/against arguments yet, I’m sorry to say my point regarding your default loyalty is proven. So please, save the innocent, “What official story am I faithful to Q?” I’d love you to prove me wrong... but I can’t see it.

That's a lot of text to write to simply demonstrate that you don't seem to even entertain the possibility that people disagree with your positions for non-biased, non-faith-based reasons, or maybe it's just specifically me. You seem to have a glaring problem with a significant lack of humility in your argumentation, you deny that these might be topics of legitimate controversy (and that's me being nice, there isn't any evidence that most experts consider a lot of this guff legimitately controversial at all) and that people honestly and rationally disagree with you. Who does disagree with you for non-biased reasons, Q, anyone? You've pretty much stated what my problem is: you are presenting evidence that is merely suggestive of an alternative to the official story. I am skeptical of this idea that you need to 'add it all up'; it's not the quantity, it's the quality, it makes it sound like I'm going to get to point 143 and say 'a-ha, of course!', which, hey maybe that's the way it really does work, but I doubt it, especially since you seem to think the evidence is all of equal strength. My honest appraisal so far is that you haven't presented anything that does not have a reasonable non-demolition alternative, I may have forgotten something so feel free to correct me. Actually, maybe this is one of our fundamental differences, do you think it's even necessary to address these non-demolition alternatives, or is it sufficient to you to only show that a demolition is a possibility?

I'm just going to let you have your say about the 'official story', whatever, it doesn't really have anything to do with anything. The purpose of this thread was to hear the case for a CT as W Tell felt that CTists had an uphill battle because of the government's story, and so I offered to attempt to hear it out from scratch. You and I have specifically narrowed this to a discussion of a demolition, so we are supposed to be analyzing the case for it. I'm not blaming you for the various conversations concerning the official story, I've instigated most of those, but I have never thought that the subject of this conversation was, 'who has the better explanation, the official story or the CTs'. I know you've tried, but I think you've very much failed, to show how disputing a certain aspect of the official story can be used as an argument for demolition (your founded but unscientific conclusion is that the results of a scientific study pretty much eliminated the possibility of a collapse due to fire and damage for example), but that really isn't the case, as I've said before it just moves us back to 'we don't know'. To your question, no, I don't believe Bazant's conclusions, I can't even adequately explain his study or his conclusions so I can't have a valid opinion on it specifically. I do currently think that a collapse due to fire and damage is at the very least an equal alternative to a demolition alternative, and certainly satisfies Occam better than a demolition.

I have no problem providing a complete evidence based case for the demolition (except that it would be a mammoth task in a single post). I did notice that each time I attempted to turn the discussion toward that aim of evidence for the demolition previously on the Talking Turkey thread you haven’t responded for whatever reason. For example, the WTC2 molten flow, the witness evidence of explosions, amongst more. So we never really got going in that direction - the discussion remained focussed on failure of the official studies. I do think that is an important area for consideration, but don’t criticise me for following that line when your responses, or lack of, determined the way ahead.

What do you mean, 'for whatever reason'? I've told you multiple times that I've purposely put some topics on hold because I want to talk about others, that I've gotten too busy to respond, and I've specifically pointed out my despair at your 'no best evidence' position, and am still deciding ultimately how to proceed on this without going through hundreds of points for the next few years with you. Not that it's not interesting stuff, but again I don't want it to turn into 'work'. At a meta-level, is there another explanation for the WTC2 molten flow/thermite reaction than a loose thermite demolition charge, or doesn't it matter? It might be a thermite device, is that good enough? There's no other explanation for the 'explosion' sounds, really? Are there any reports from survivors in stairwells having the wall blasted in from the pre-collapse charges? The list of things that I'm sure you've seen of things that explode in fires cannot be the cause of these explosions? I don't think I can tell the difference necessarily between an explosion and something large or loud falling, our other earwitnesses can?

Yes, ‘how do you know that?’ is an excellent question. But your presentation of the situation above is horribly backward. Let’s get it straight – it was initially your claim, your argument, your denial which raised that the WTC demolition theory cannot be correct due to these hundreds of thousands of experts who have not protested in its favour.

It would help if we're going to get it straight that you turn down the exaggeration knob long enough so that you were actually being truthful. Never, never, never, have I ever said 'cannot be correct', quote me please. What I have argued is that, especially when you set the surreal standard of 'blatant', that the fact that an overwhelming part of the relevant scientific community has not expressed any support for truther's theories, and many have done exactly the opposite, is a data point that needs a satisfactory explanation. Do you disagree? Considering how long we talked about it and the armchair pseudo-psychologizing you've offered up to explain this point, I didn't think so. That seems a lot straighter to me than your retelling. I've given you plenty of opportunity to back off and get real on your 'blatant' demolition nonsense, but you don't, that is your decision, not mine.

It is very firmly you who profess to know their mindset upon which your argument depends. And yes, indeed to that I speculate of the possibilities which show that your contention is unproven – my line of reasoning here is a counter to your pontification. I don’t think we should be drawing conclusions based on any of this – you do. I don’t believe the number of experts either side of the fence prove our arguments right or wrong either way (I mentioned to you before how I don’t put too much faith in ‘experts’) – apparently you do; it was your initial argument – it was your claim they should all be coming forward.

The number of experts don't prove our arguments right or wrong either way. Here's my argument. 'Blatant' means 'obvious', Q. Obvious demolition involvement in the most famous, spectacular building collapses in history means that many/most of the experts in the relevant fields, who have manyfold more experience and expertise than you in evaluating these specialized questions, must know or realize that the buildings were demolished. Yet, they don't say anything, and many argue the opposite. If you don't think this needs an adequate explanation or is curious at all, we can drop it and let everyone decide for themselves what they think about it, I'm very comfortable with my criticism and you seem equally so with your explanation.

You don’t need to explain that to me, I already raised this potential problem of circumstantial evidence first on the other thread, post #457: “this [reliance on circumstantial evidence] makes it terribly difficult to prove the overall case to anyone who wants to take up an opposing position”.

You may have raised it, even with your 'sale' of it with the word 'want', now you just need to address it. This circumstantial evidence point is exactly why I keep asking about why you just acknowledge one possibility so frequently; it is the other possibilities that are currently causing a big problem for your circumstantial case, they have to be not just minimized, but pretty much eliminated since your evidence is this circumstantial.

Now perhaps prove you are not a pseudo-skeptic and, instead of avoiding it as you have done to date, apply your quote and ‘benefit of the doubt’ to judgments of the official story. For one example, the circumstantial evidence that the guilt of bin Laden, for which we went to war, relies upon. I’ll say it again because it’s so important – the version of skepticism you have demonstrated leads to war, mine leads first to investigation.

This is a perfect example of what I think maybe the biggest problem as I mentioned above, we are having two different discussions in two different contexts. I am not the person to best defend the official story, I never thought that was my role here. And come on, 'the version of skepticism you have demonstrated leads to war', ridiculous. My version of skepticism has one purpose, emotionless and unbiased by the implications: to try to ascertain what is most likely to be true, and most of all, to ensure that what I believe is true is actually well supported. Your overcertainty distorts, omits, and spins the evidence to suit your argument, and you try to argue that that's okay because of the implications. Here's another overconfident quote I'm sure you've heard: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."^[. This coincides well on your consequences angle also; much better for us to go destroy Iraq than suffer an atomic terrorist attack in the US, no? Do you need more examples of one-sided evidence and overconfident statements being used to lead us to war? That's where your brand of argumentation, definitely non-skeptical, takes us.

You've brought up Bin Laden a few times, I'm not sure why, I think it's because you're trying to tie me to the official story or something and score points, not sure. Is the official story being incorrect concerning Bin Laden's role a piece of evidence for a demolition? If not, since I'm drowning in points already I don't think I'm ready to cover him. From what very little I've read about it, about all I can say is that I think there is a misconception among the general populace that he was more directly involved than he may actually have been.

Regarding the general state of circumstantial evidence, when all is considered for the official story and an alternative version of events, the corroboration of facts within every area of 9/11 favours the latter. This is not coincidence, nor should it be the case given a ‘natural’ terrorist attack. This is why I hold my views.

That's cool, it's not really an argument, but it's fine. So far I don't find the coincidences at all remarkable, and I don't know yet what you think has been shown that has no other non-demolition explanation and is clearly inconsistent with a non-demolition collapse. Saying that the official story is wrong doesn't make the demolition theory correct.

It didn’t come with any one piece of evidence, thus why I say no one piece of evidence is ‘best’. It is only with a holding and understanding of all circumstances and evidence before, during and after 9/11 (and it is vast) that one can confidently reach the conclusions I have – a level of research which you yourself admit to being far from. Perhaps this is a contributing reason to why my conclusions come across as disproportionally confident to yourself – you just don’t currently see what I do, whether for want or lack of knowledge, and I can’t hope to put it all down in any single post.

Well, I'll have to see how that plays out then, I don't know how convincing I'll find a mass of maybes if nothing of greater evidentiary value is forthcoming. I'm not sure how you are going to escape the burden of proof and presumption of innocence inherent to your circumstantial evidence argument either.

On the Talking Turkey thread I have provided information that the CIA and a Saudi government agent assisted the hijackers prior to the attack – that is not in doubt, all left to determine is if that assistance was intentional or not. And if we cannot determine it beyond doubt, then you have no right to deny support to an investigation through misplaced confidence in the official story.

Don't intelligence services sometimes intentionally help potential criminals in order to sting them? Just happened recently I believe, they set up some guy who thought he had a van full of explosives and was going to blow up some building, but he was working with undercover people the whole time. Regardless, and I realize I may be bringing something over from the other thread, does this have anything to do with a demolition? They may have been assisted in a plot to just crash planes into buildings?

Leading on from the above, I do believe that what you describe as my “gems” and “excuses” are legitimate. Well, legitimate cause for concern and investigation, not so legitimate when you produce exactly the same level of gems and excuses that went on to support a war. You must understand that whenever either of us calls ‘well it could be’ in regard to 9/11, that we have a problem – more so for the official story considering a war was based on the event. But I think I already know what you will do in response to that information on the Talking Turkey thread – produce exactly such speculation as ‘well it could be’ and in your overconfidence declare everything satisfactory; no investigation needed. Again, I hope you prove me wrong.

Again, then we're having two different conversations; I don't consider this to be official story vs. false flag theory grudge-match. I am trying to talk about what is true here; the consequences have nothing to do with that, that is a fallacy, 'appeal to consequences'. What exactly is wrong with me or anyone taking the position, "I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11 other than planes were hijacked and crashed into buildings and they collapsed. There isn't enough evidence to say too much beyond that."? Because that's exactly the scenario where 'well it could be' is a problem for you and not for me. Any time you attack the official story, I don't really have to say anything unless you try to spin it into support for a demolition, which doesn't usually logically follow; I can just say, and this was going to be my original approach with W Tell, 'okay, let's assume you're right, I now have no confidence that point X of the official story is actually correct, I now don't know.', and see then what was left with which to make the CTs case.

Obviously my position wouldn’t change at all, though this appears the type of confession you are waiting on to change your mind... actually, I still don’t think you would change your mind, rather you would produce a gem or excuse, criticise me for ever raising it and appeal to your perception of my overconfidence.

I thought I asked if your certainty would change, not your position. I really don't think it's just my perception of overconfidence; we've gone all over 'blatant', and how many times are you going to use the word 'prove' unliterally? This wouldn't automatically change my mind, this guy would have to be checked out, people confess falsely to crimes they didn't commit, we learn that at Pseudo-Skeptics School. It's at least something semi-solid to try and connect your myriad other points to.

I have to keep repeating that because it’s important to understand there’s no single piece of evidence that’s going to ‘blow your socks off’. The process of understanding is to build the case until comes ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’. Do you know I researched 9/11 for two years striving to understand the full evidence available, all the while holding out that the official story may be accurate, before I took my current position or dared produce anything like the confidence I do now? It’s not a view you can easily take on after accepting the official narrative for so long and your selective derision of individual points says only to me that your wider knowledge and/or understanding are lacking.

I could easily accept your view if you had a good case for it, the very fact that it took you two years of study leads me to believe, again, that it's not as blatant as you state. You've provided me a fine scaffold waiting for more evidence to come forward to fit into it, I'm much more able to evaluate any future discoveries in the context of both the official and the truthers theories. I think you are putting part of each straw on the camel's back no matter how tenuous or specious the reasoning, whereas I would set the straw aside until I find better reason to add it. I'm not sure if or how I'm going to see a more meta-level argument regarding how all these points shouldn't exist or connect together if I'm able to find other explanations for each of them. The Israeli agents could have just known about the attacks, they could have been involved in a demolition, the buildings could have been demolished and the agents had nothing to do with it, they could have been in New York for some other intelligence reason; maybe this gets part of the straw, but this is one of the better points you've offered and to me it's still somewhat middling.

Also to add, I’m sure you know it’s not cool to be a bigger smartass so you’re welcome to win that one. And if I do come across like a smartass I’m sorry about that, it’s not intended, more a result of another cause – confidence or frustration for many reasons, being honest to a fault with my opinion, humour or just my tone not translating well into text, etc. I know the discussion can seem a little personal sometimes, as I see it that’s unavoidable when large disagreements arise and we get into why we each think the way we do, but I am enjoying your posts, so far – I wouldn’t be challenging you to respond on the Talking Turkey thread otherwise.

Indeed, it's been a good conversation, and again I think we're fine as far as tone and attacks, I've been in far far worse, this is sunshine and ice cream in comparison, and this stuff doesn't phase me, we're yappin on the intertubez. I see some light at the end of the tunnel of work swampage, so my next step is to respond to your post you mentioned and see if we can get back to our points. I do want to think about, and feel free to continue, this conversation about epistemological topics, I need to think about to about how to proceed; are we talking about the demolition case, or are we comparing two theories? Or should I just approach it more benignly and look at it as you giving me a brief tour of the case for a CT, not sure yet.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Liquid Gardens

[skyeagle409]

some people literally cannot handle the truth.

This is reality!

The terrorist group responsible for the Bojinka Plot, and the 9/11 attacks wish to continue their campaign of terror.

Al Qaeda '9/11 the second' plot foiled in Jordan

AMMAN, Jordan – Jordanian authorities say they foiled an Al Qaeda plot to attack shopping malls and Western diplomatic missions using suicide bombers, booby-trapped cars and rockets smuggled in from Syria on a date terrorists dub "9/11 the second."

Some 11 suspected Al Qaeda-linked militants were arrested for what would have been the terror group's first attack since a triple hotel bombing in Amman almost seven years ago, which killed 60 people, the government said Sunday. Al Qaeda has targeted Jordan because of the government's alliance with the United States and its 1994 peace treaty with Israel. The foiled plot was to take place on Nov. 9, seven years to the day after the Amman attacks. While American tradition lists numeric dates by month, day and year - hence Sept. 11 is known as 9/11 - the international protocol is day, month and year, meaning Nov. 9 is noted as 9/11.

"They were plotting deadly terror attacks on vital institutions, shopping centers and diplomatic missions," he said. "They sought to destabilize Jordan," he said. "They plotted against Jordan's national security." A statement by Jordanian intelligence said an investigation showed that the group "adopts the ideology of Al Qaeda" and that it nicknamed its terror plot as "9/11 the second."

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

___________________________________________________

The Bojinka Plot

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale three phase Islamist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The attack would involve a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II, an air bombing of 11 airliners and their approximately 4,000 passengers that would have flown from Asia to the United States, and Murad's proposal to crash a plane into the CIA's headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia, in addition to the plan to bomb multiple aeroplanes.

The term also refers to a combination of plots by Yousef and Mohammed to take place in January 1995,

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

Take note the CIA was also a target, so either we learn from history, or we don't.

Edited October 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[tribalactivity]

Evidence please! Besides, what does that have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

[/quote

Iran Contra is an example! Why do you think the US had interests in Vietnam? the Golden Triangle! Afghanistan is the same Hashish and Opium! check out the story of Howard Marks the drug trafficker details CIA and M16 involvement

[skyeagle409]

Evidence please! Besides, what does that have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

[/quote

Iran Contra is an example! Why do you think the US had interests in Vietnam? the Golden Triangle! Afghanistan is the same Hashish and Opium! check out the story of Howard Marks the drug trafficker details CIA and M16 involvement

That is not evidence, and nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If we wanted an excuse to go to war, we could have done so when terrorist blew up our embassies, blew up Pan Am 103, bombed WTC1 in 1993, and bombed the USS Cole, but we didn't go to war.

[tribalactivity]

That is not evidence, and nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If we wanted an excuse to go to war, we could have done so when terrorist blew up our embassies, blew up Pan Am 103, bombed WTC1 in 1993, and bombed the USS Cole, but we didn't go to war.

That's right they went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were destroying the Opium fields and also to takeover the area with high interests in The Caspian Sea. Only Iran and Syria are in the way of controlling the entire area

[skyeagle409]

That's right they went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were destroying the Opium fields and also to takeover the area with high interests in The Caspian Sea.

That doesn't make any sense from our military standpoint. We went to war because Muslim terrorist committed an act of war against the United States on 9/11/2001, and remember, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States before the 9/11 attacks.

[TrueBeliever]

That doesn't make any sense from our military standpoint. We went to war because Muslim terrorist committed an act of war against the United States on 9/11/2001, and remember, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States before the 9/11 attacks.

It doesn't make sense that just a few years after 9/11 President Bush when asked about Bin Laden...stated he didn't worry about Bin Laden anymore.......gee. that's odd.......hmmmm.

[skyeagle409]

It doesn't make sense that just a few years after 9/11 President Bush when asked about Bin Laden...stated he didn't worry about Bin Laden anymore.......gee. that's odd.......hmmmm.

Just another blunder on his part, but then again, he, and many leaders throughout history have made similar blunders, but that does not translate into a 9/11 government conspiracy as many 9/11 Truthers suggest.

[TrueBeliever]

Just another blunder on his part, but then again, he, and many leaders throughout history have made similar blunders, but that does not translate into a 9/11 government conspiracy as many 9/11 Truthers suggest.

blunder???? the 'mastermind' of a guy who engineered the MURDER of 3,000 people, and his attitude which he went on and about....was a BLUNDER??? hahah.....don't be so naive.

How does one make a blunder like that? it wasn't a s;ipped word, or the wrong word...it was a flippant attiude like next? im tired of this convo ......we are on to 'other' terrorists...blah blah blah......I would think a president wouldn't BLUNDER about the mastermind of 3,000 effin murders! but hey you also believe the official story of 9/11 and are not concerned with a legit and thorough investigation........gotcha.

is ignorance really THAT blissful???

[skyeagle409]

blunder???? the 'mastermind' of a guy who engineered the MURDER of 3,000 people, and his attitude which he went on and about....was a BLUNDER??? hahah.....don't be so naive.

It was clear very that the 9/11 attacks were planned and orchestrated by al-Qaeda, not by the United States.

How does one make a blunder like that?

Such blunders do not translate into a government conspiracy, and remember, France and Great Britain committed serious blunders that allowed Hitler invade neighboring countries and start World War II just as intelligence failures allowed al-Qaeda to attack America.

it wasn't a s;ipped word, or the wrong word...it was a flippant attiude like next? im tired of this convo ......we are on to 'other' terrorists...blah blah blah......I would think a president wouldn't BLUNDER about the mastermind of 3,000 effin murders!

The intelligence failures occurred on the watch of President Bush, but again, the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with a U.S. government conspiracy.

but hey you also believe the official story of 9/11 and are not concerned with a legit and thorough investigation........gotcha.

Knowledge allows a person to know when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em.

is ignorance really THAT blissful???

Looking back over the past few years, claims of 9/11 Truthers have been successfully refuted thanks to viable evidence. Remember, the 9/11 Truthers were the folks who confused Delta 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757, and scientist from an KC-135, which was a military version of the B-707, as passengers of United 93.

Let's also remember that 9/11 Truthers confused standard aerodynamice fuselage/wing fairings and main landing gear doors as a non-existent modified pod not knowing that such fairings and gear doors are standard on all B-767s.

Let's remember that 9/11 Truthers confused molten metal flowing from WTC2 as molten steel when in fact, the silvery droplets dismissed their claim that molten metal was steel and let's not forget how 9/11 Truthers claimed that a photo depicted molten steel when in fact, the photo was doctored and what they thought was molten steel turn out to be reflection from a flashlight.

Let's remember that 9/11 Truthers claimed that a video depicted explosions, and they did so without knowing that the video was actually a trap and apparently, they failed to notice that the video was a reversed mirror image of WTC7.

Now, for the rest of the story.

[media=]

So, is it any wonder why I have said that 9/11 Truthers are vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation, which they have proven time after time after time?

Edited October 24, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

That's a lot of text to write to simply demonstrate that you don't seem to even entertain the possibility that people disagree with your positions for non-biased, non-faith-based reasons, or maybe it's just specifically me. You seem to have a glaring problem with a significant lack of humility in your argumentation, you deny that these might be topics of legitimate controversy (and that's me being nice, there isn't any evidence that most experts consider a lot of this guff legimitately controversial at all) and that people honestly and rationally disagree with you. Who does disagree with you for non-biased reasons, Q, anyone? You've pretty much stated what my problem is: you are presenting evidence that is merely suggestive of an alternative to the official story. I am skeptical of this idea that you need to 'add it all up'; it's not the quantity, it's the quality, it makes it sound like I'm going to get to point 143 and say 'a-ha, of course!', which, hey maybe that's the way it really does work, but I doubt it, especially since you seem to think the evidence is all of equal strength. My honest appraisal so far is that you haven't presented anything that does not have a reasonable non-demolition alternative, I may have forgotten something so feel free to correct me. Actually, maybe this is one of our fundamental differences, do you think it's even necessary to address these non-demolition alternatives, or is it sufficient to you to only show that a demolition is a possibility?

I'm just going to let you have your say about the 'official story', whatever, it doesn't really have anything to do with anything. The purpose of this thread was to hear the case for a CT as W Tell felt that CTists had an uphill battle because of the government's story, and so I offered to attempt to hear it out from scratch. You and I have specifically narrowed this to a discussion of a demolition, so we are supposed to be analyzing the case for it. I'm not blaming you for the various conversations concerning the official story, I've instigated most of those, but I have never thought that the subject of this conversation was, 'who has the better explanation, the official story or the CTs'. I know you've tried, but I think you've very much failed, to show how disputing a certain aspect of the official story can be used as an argument for demolition (your founded but unscientific conclusion is that the results of a scientific study pretty much eliminated the possibility of a collapse due to fire and damage for example), but that really isn't the case, as I've said before it just moves us back to 'we don't know'. To your question, no, I don't believe Bazant's conclusions, I can't even adequately explain his study or his conclusions so I can't have a valid opinion on it specifically. I do currently think that a collapse due to fire and damage is at the very least an equal alternative to a demolition alternative, and certainly satisfies Occam better than a demolition.

It was actually to demonstrate that, despite your protestation - “What official story … ?” (anyone can decide for themselves whether that was a genuine question or attempt to present innocence) - I don’t see your line of discussion as objective. Who does disagree with the false flag attack on 9/11 for non-biased reasons? Those lacking knowledge and/or logic. There are other explanations, and it can be a combination - for example, I’d say that your disagreement comes from the bias derived of a long-held view and an admitted lack of knowledge.

About the quantity of evidence, ending in your reference to Occam - in conjunction, this is precisely what the false flag has in its favour. First, let’s confirm Occam’s Razor. It is not, as commonly misconceived, the simplest or most mundane explanation. It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

In the words of Occam: -

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity

"

And as described by Newton: -

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

We know there are hundreds of data points, but let’s take just three that we have raised/discussed: the Israeli agents detained on 9/11, the NIST results (showing an impact and fire based collapse unlikely) and the WTC2 molten flow. Applying Occam… should we say that these are the product of three disparate circumstances requiring three unrelated explanations? That is what you have done to date. Or should we apply a single answer which explains all in one attempt - a demolition of the WTC buildings? Then remember that there are not three such data points, but hundreds that fit the very same pattern. How many explanations do you need, where one would do? Apparently as many as are necessary to maintain the official pretext for war.

Yes, there certainly must come an ‘a-ha’ moment for any questioning, rationale and unbiased person. The sheer number of dissimilar explanations the official story must promote, many unlikely even in isolation, is unreasonable. And the official story must be correct every single time in its multitude of explanations… the demolition theory must be correct only once.

What do you mean, 'for whatever reason'? I've told you multiple times that I've purposely put some topics on hold because I want to talk about others, that I've gotten too busy to respond, and I've specifically pointed out my despair at your 'no best evidence' position, and am still deciding ultimately how to proceed on this without going through hundreds of points for the next few years with you. Not that it's not interesting stuff, but again I don't want it to turn into 'work'. At a meta-level, is there another explanation for the WTC2 molten flow/thermite reaction than a loose thermite demolition charge, or doesn't it matter? It might be a thermite device, is that good enough? There's no other explanation for the 'explosion' sounds, really? Are there any reports from survivors in stairwells having the wall blasted in from the pre-collapse charges? The list of things that I'm sure you've seen of things that explode in fires cannot be the cause of these explosions? I don't think I can tell the difference necessarily between an explosion and something large or loud falling, our other earwitnesses can?

Ok, so it’s not that the evidence does not exist, but that you’ve been too busy to look at it.

I don’t see any reasonable alternative explanation for the WTC2 molten metal/thermite flow - do you have a suggestion? This must be the third time I’ve asked now. If you have anything reasonable, is it a better fit than thermite? I’ve been unable to provide a better explanation.

Regarding the explosions prior to collapse, to save me typing it again, please see my post #954 here, to which you did not respond. When the first impression of a firefighter is “bomb”, are you going to add yet another disparate explanation to the list of hundreds, or adhere Occam and invoke the regular/all-encompassing answer: demolition?

It would help if we're going to get it straight that you turn down the exaggeration knob long enough so that you were actually being truthful. Never, never, never, have I ever said 'cannot be correct', quote me please. What I have argued is that, especially when you set the surreal standard of 'blatant', that the fact that an overwhelming part of the relevant scientific community has not expressed any support for truther's theories, and many have done exactly the opposite, is a data point that needs a satisfactory explanation. Do you disagree? Considering how long we talked about it and the armchair pseudo-psychologizing you've offered up to explain this point, I didn't think so. That seems a lot straighter to me than your retelling. I've given you plenty of opportunity to back off and get real on your 'blatant' demolition nonsense, but you don't, that is your decision, not mine.

The number of experts don't prove our arguments right or wrong either way. Here's my argument. 'Blatant' means 'obvious', Q. Obvious demolition involvement in the most famous, spectacular building collapses in history means that many/most of the experts in the relevant fields, who have manyfold more experience and expertise than you in evaluating these specialized questions, must know or realize that the buildings were demolished. Yet, they don't say anything, and many argue the opposite. If you don't think this needs an adequate explanation or is curious at all, we can drop it and let everyone decide for themselves what they think about it, I'm very comfortable with my criticism and you seem equally so with your explanation.

1) It is your argument against the blatant demolition.

2) I provided a plausible counter explanation.

3) Your argument against the blatant demolition failed.

You may have raised it, even with your 'sale' of it with the word 'want', now you just need to address it. This circumstantial evidence point is exactly why I keep asking about why you just acknowledge one possibility so frequently; it is the other possibilities that are currently causing a big problem for your circumstantial case, they have to be not just minimized, but pretty much eliminated since your evidence is this circumstantial.

In many cases I believe the alternatives offered by the official story are minimized or eliminated but the biased want to cling on to them (WTC2 molten metal flow?) and where they are not, as discussed, Occam leads the way through the one overarching answer: demolition.

This is a perfect example of what I think maybe the biggest problem as I mentioned above, we are having two different discussions in two different contexts. I am not the person to best defend the official story, I never thought that was my role here. And come on, 'the version of skepticism you have demonstrated leads to war', ridiculous. My version of skepticism has one purpose, emotionless and unbiased by the implications: to try to ascertain what is most likely to be true, and most of all, to ensure that what I believe is true is actually well supported. Your overcertainty distorts, omits, and spins the evidence to suit your argument, and you try to argue that that's okay because of the implications. Here's another overconfident quote I'm sure you've heard: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."^[. This coincides well on your consequences angle also; much better for us to go destroy Iraq than suffer an atomic terrorist attack in the US, no? Do you need more examples of one-sided evidence and overconfident statements being used to lead us to war? That's where your brand of argumentation, definitely non-skeptical, takes us.

You've brought up Bin Laden a few times, I'm not sure why, I think it's because you're trying to tie me to the official story or something and score points, not sure. Is the official story being incorrect concerning Bin Laden's role a piece of evidence for a demolition? If not, since I'm drowning in points already I don't think I'm ready to cover him. From what very little I've read about it, about all I can say is that I think there is a misconception among the general populace that he was more directly involved than he may actually have been.

To state the obvious - if the official story is not correct then an alternative is correct. It is telling how often the official theories fall down when they should not, if true. There was no barrier to NIST proving the collapses were a result of impact and fire, but they failed horribly… I wonder why.

Regarding the Rice quote on Hussein, the problem is that the overconfidence led to war. Regarding the official story of 9/11, the problem is that the overconfidence led to war. Regarding my confidence, this leads only to precaution and at worst, investigation/trial.

I did have the impression that we temporarily put the demolition discussion on hold and were branching into other areas, thus my mention of bin Laden. I guess it can be indirectly linked if you wanted, because if bin Laden were not so responsible as the official story would claim for actions, then we might wonder what else is not so to blame for the events witnessed.

Don't intelligence services sometimes intentionally help potential criminals in order to sting them? Just happened recently I believe, they set up some guy who thought he had a van full of explosives and was going to blow up some building, but he was working with undercover people the whole time. Regardless, and I realize I may be bringing something over from the other thread, does this have anything to do with a demolition? They may have been assisted in a plot to just crash planes into buildings?

Again this is an area we branched into separate from demolition. That is an interesting explanation you provide to add to the hundreds needed to defend the official story in place of the one answer: false flag operation. But honestly, it is interesting and at first glance would fit events in isolation. I certainly like it more than the “incompetence” arguments I’ve heard before. Yes, a deliberate entrapment operation involving assistance to the terrorists explains the very proactive moves made. In isolation I can’t come up with a reason that couldn’t have been so. Let’s say CIA agents on the case wanted a crime (not realising the magnitude of what was to be committed) and watertight case to put the terrorists away for good, and in detention use them as a source of intelligence, rather than arresting the terrorists too soon and, lacking concrete evidence, having to deport them on a VISA violation.

It appears to make sense, but wait, a few problems come to mind: -

1) It does not rule out that someone in the chain of command wanted the 9/11 attack to play out to provide pretext for their war aims, this sting operation could have been a cover, and indeed through the wider evidence we know there were U.S. officials with such motive.

2) In a genuine case of entrapment, the idea for committing the crime must come from the accused, rather than government agents. Here it gets really interesting because the wider evidence indicates that in 1999 agents presented the 9/11 operation at bin Laden’s doorstep… so was it really the idea of the two terrorists, Mihdhar and Hazmi, assisted by intelligence? Yet, bin Laden had discussed the idea even before that. Surely we cannot be looking at the biggest case of entrapment imaginable - an attempt to entice 'Al Qaeda' into an attack? But for what purpose? You see, it’s still suiting the motive in 1) above. In addition, the same agents who presented and made possible the operation were on the planes - were they double-crossed?… the idea of entrapment as a complete answer is not making so much sense now. It’s all getting convoluted rather than simply accepting a false flag operation.

3) Accounting for everything else, from the Pentagon cover-up to the blatant WTC demolition, it simply does not fit.

Further thoughts welcomed.

What exactly is wrong with me or anyone taking the position, "I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11 other than planes were hijacked and crashed into buildings and they collapsed. There isn't enough evidence to say too much beyond that."? Because that's exactly the scenario where 'well it could be' is a problem for you and not for me.

No, that is a problem for the declaration of war, not for taking precaution and demanding comprehensive investigation.

Indeed, it's been a good conversation, and again I think we're fine as far as tone and attacks, I've been in far far worse, this is sunshine and ice cream in comparison, and this stuff doesn't phase me, we're yappin on the intertubez. I see some light at the end of the tunnel of work swampage, so my next step is to respond to your post you mentioned and see if we can get back to our points. I do want to think about, and feel free to continue, this conversation about epistemological topics, I need to think about to about how to proceed; are we talking about the demolition case, or are we comparing two theories? Or should I just approach it more benignly and look at it as you giving me a brief tour of the case for a CT, not sure yet.

Well if you decide and let me know I’ll try to stick to it.

[skyeagle409]

Yes, there certainly must come an ‘a-ha’ moment for any questioning, rationale and unbiased person. The sheer number of dissimilar explanations the official story must promote, many unlikely even in isolation, is unreasonable. And the official story must be correct every single time in its multitude of explanations… the demolition theory must be correct only once.

Actually not!

Simply because no explosions are seen in the videos nor heard on audio, nor detected on seismic monitors, and in fact, no shred of evidence of explosives was ever found,either within the rubble of the WTC buildings or at the Fresh Kills landfill.

Question is; who made up the tale that explosives were used when there was no evidence of explosives in the first place? It has been over 11 years and yet, not one shred of evidence of explosives has surfaced.

I don’t see any reasonable alternative explanation for the WTC2 molten metal/thermite flow - do you have a suggestion?

Aluminum! After all, tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of the B-767s and we know that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.

This must be the third time I’ve asked now. If you have anything reasonable, is it a better fit than thermite?

Fire!!! After all, we have all kind of evidence of fires within the WTC buildings, but absolutely no evidence of explosives.

Regarding the explosions prior to collapse, to save me typing it again, please see my post #954 here, to which you did not respond. When the first impression of a firefighter is “bomb”, are you going to add yet another disparate explanation to the list of hundreds, or adhere Occam and invoke the regular/all-encompassing answer: demolition?

As the WTC buildings collapse, there is no sound of explosions.

No sound of any explosions in that video as WTC2 collapsed. Now, let's take a look at WTC7.

No sound of explosions as WTC7 collapsed either!

Question is:

Who has been spreading disinformation and misinformation regarding non-existent bomb explosions when it is very clear in the videos that as the WTC buildings collapsed, there are no sounds of explosions.

Edited October 24, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

The claim of non-existent explosions in video and audio (not to mention witness statements) is ridiculous and exposed by a brief Google or YouTube search of “WTC explosions”. I will only address the following point for LG lest he make the same mistake…

Aluminum! After all, tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of the B-767s and we know that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.

Aluminium is not a good explanation because it is a silver colour at its relatively low melting point in daylight conditions. Please spare me the pictures of molten aluminium in poor light, molten aluminium far above its melting point and photos that are not aluminium at all - these are irrelevant. For aluminium to attain the near white hot colour seen, it would first need to be somehow contained within the tower so that it could not pool on the floor away from the highest temperatures, flow away from the fire or exit the building, whilst an extremely efficient heat transfer took place, before then somehow being ejected in sporadic bursts. NIST knew this, which is why, rather than appeal to the lacking answer of aluminium alone, in their FAQ it is theorised to be an aluminium and burning debris mix - though that has also been proven incorrect by physical experiments which failed to replicate the effect, lack of flame or dark smoke and completeness of the coloration. In addition, aluminium (I assume from the aircraft - if your theory were true and came from the façade, the effect should occur all around the fire zone) does not explain why the phenomenon initiates only in the minutes prior to collapse or the nature of the sporadic flow - each fitting of a thermite charge designed to initiate the collapse.

[skyeagle409]

The claim of non-existent explosions in video and audio (not to mention witness statements) is ridiculous and exposed by a brief Google or YouTube search of “WTC explosions”. I will only address the following point for LG lest he make the same mistake…

If you are going to claim that explosives were used, you have to provide evidence, and up to this point, you have failed to produce such evidence. As you saw in the videos, no explosions were seen nor heard.

Aluminium is not a good explanation because it is a silver colour at its relatively low melting point in daylight conditions.

[

On the contrary, aluminum is the perfect explanation because temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, for which there were tons of the metal available inside and outside the WTC buildings, yet too low to melt steel and the droplets were indicative of aluminum, not steel.

For aluminium to attain the near white hot colour seen, it would first need to be somehow contained within the tower...

No it wouldn't! And, I even provided the temperature color chart of aluminum to make my point very clear, but it seem you ignored what that chart depicted as far as the temperature color range of aluminum.

Edited October 25, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

If you are going to claim that explosives were used, you have to provide evidence, and up to this point, you have failed to produce such evidence. As you saw in the videos, no explosions were seen nor heard.

"As you saw in the videos, no explosions were seen nor heard": -

You simply do not accept evidence, skyeagle.

On the contrary, aluminum is the perfect explanation because temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, for which there were tons of the metal available inside and outside the WTC buildings, yet too low to melt steel and the droplets were indicative of aluminum, not steel.

No it wouldn't! And, I even provided the temperature color chart of aluminum to make my point very clear, but it seem you ignored what that chart depicted as far as the temperature color range of aluminum.

None of that has any bearing on what I said.

[skyeagle409]

"As you saw in the videos, no explosions were seen nor heard": -

[media=]

[/media]

That is not an explosion from a shaped charge, and no evidence of any explosive was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. Once again, you do not know what a real bomb not only sounds like, but feels like.

Edited October 25, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

The video of the crane shows a failing steel section - I'm thinking the explosion sound is probably the bolts 'popping' at the lower connection due to the overload. However, according to observation and the NIST investigation, there was no such overload or failed columns in WTC7 until moments prior to the collapse initiation

That is not an explosion from a shaped charge,

I was going to ask, how do you know that? But I'm just going to say, you don't know that.

and no evidence of any explosive was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

No evidence of kitchen sinks is recorded either - it's not something anyone was looking for - but I'd bet there were some in the rubble.

I think you have derailed the discussion far enough skyeagle - you are back on ignore.

[TrueBeliever]

It was clear very that the 9/11 attacks were planned and orchestrated by al-Qaeda, not by the United States.

Such blunders do not translate into a government conspiracy, and remember, France and Great Britain committed serious blunders that allowed Hitler invade neighboring countries and start World War II just as intelligence failures allowed al-Qaeda to attack America.

The intelligence failures occurred on the watch of President Bush, but again, the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with a U.S. government conspiracy.

Knowledge allows a person to know when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em.

Looking back over the past few years, claims of 9/11 Truthers have been successfully refuted thanks to viable evidence. Remember, the 9/11 Truthers were the folks who confused Delta 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757, and scientist from an KC-135, which was a military version of the B-707, as passengers of United 93.

Let's also remember that 9/11 Truthers confused standard aerodynamice fuselage/wing fairings and main landing gear doors as a non-existent modified pod not knowing that such fairings and gear doors are standard on all B-767s.

Let's remember that 9/11 Truthers confused molten metal flowing from WTC2 as molten steel when in fact, the silvery droplets dismissed their claim that molten metal was steel and let's not forget how 9/11 Truthers claimed that a photo depicted molten steel when in fact, the photo was doctored and what they thought was molten steel turn out to be reflection from a flashlight.

Let's remember that 9/11 Truthers claimed that a video depicted explosions, and they did so without knowing that the video was actually a trap and apparently, they failed to notice that the video was a reversed mirror image of WTC7.

Now, for the rest of the story.

[media=]

So, is it any wonder why I have said that 9/11 Truthers are vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation, which they have proven time after time after time?

everyone is vulnerable to misinformation stop fixating on the extremists and really look at things...............

what do you think about the Visa Express program for Saudi Arabia pre 9/11? pretty convenient don't you think? or was it just a blunder? DELIBERATELY providing an EASIER entry into the United States from a country KNOWN for it's extremists and support of terrorism................pretty 'convenient' blunder for all the hijackers there anyway you look at it.

I think many are vulnerable to believing 'official' stories.....not because I think they are bad or crazy, but because they are 'normal' and trusting and want to believe those in charge can be trusted. People in power take advantage of this. EVERYONE is vulnerable to misinformation. stamping something official doesn't automatically confer credibility and trust for me. I have to look at EVERYTHING. Just because there are ALOT of wacko truthers doesn't mean we were told the truth about 9/11.

As I have said before i do not believe 9/11 was a Govt conspiracy....IMO very powerful higher ups with an ideology straight from the mouth of "God" according them helped in some form or fashion a

new Pearl Harbor' to gain public support for an Iraq invasion and a war on terrorism.........and at the very least, if it was 'only' an intelligence failure, it STILL warrants criminally negligent homicide charges because we have proof of foreknowledge, and people being warned. Somebody should have their a^^ kicked JUST for the Visa Express program which could hardly be JUST a blunder but would have required some reason to implement. What reason do you think the Visa Express for saudi's was begun?

[skyeagle409]

The video of the crane shows a failing steel section - I'm thinking the explosion sound is probably the bolts 'popping' at the lower connection due to the overload.

Just think what is happening to the steel structure of a building on the verge of collapsing. We have reports of visual buckling of the WTC buildings just prior to their collapse, so what is that doing to the remaining undamaged structure? They are undergoing increased structural loads for which they were not designed to handle, which brings to mind, my concern to a Lockheed tech representative who wanted to add an internal doubler between the structural former and the outer skin of a C-5 transport.

I voiced my concern that the double would present additional stress on the outer skin, but the doublers were added against my concern, that in reference to the outer skin stress cracks that developed due to excess use of the forward nose visor. To make a long story short, about a year later, new outer skin cracks began to develope due to the internal doublers and as a result, the engineering technical report manual was revised to exclude installation of internal doublers.

The buckling of the WTC buildings was another sign of structural failure and it was noted that the building was going to collapse. One of the signs we look for during aircraft inspections, whether preflight or during maintenance, are signs of structural buckling, which indicates an internal structural problem such as failure of one or more structural member.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

...howwever, according to observation and the NIST investigation, there was no such overload or failed columns in WTC7 until moments prior to the collapse initiation

The failure of Column 79 initiated the progressive global collapse of WTC 7

• The buckled critical column led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the roof of WTC 7
  

• The buckled critical column in WTC 7 led to the buckling of adjacent interior columns to the south of the critical column
  

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Single Point of Failure

http://www.structure...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

I was going to ask, how do you know that? But I'm just going to say, you don't know that.

Because seismic detectors did not pick up signs of such an event nor was there evidence on structural members depicting the effects of shape charges, which were examined by investigators nor was there a Succession of sounds that indicated planted shape charges nor was pre-weakening noted on any of the recovered structural members.

You can't just place shape charges on a building the size of the WTC towers and expect them to fall in the manner we all saw on video. Ever wonder why RDX is used in conjunction with dynamite?

No evidence of kitchen sinks is recorded either - it's not something anyone was looking for - but I'd bet there were some in the rubble.

I am very sure that if effort was put into it, even remains of a kitchen sink could be identified, after all, human remains were later identified at Fresh Kills landfill.

Edited October 25, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

everyone is vulnerable to misinformation stop fixating on the extremists and really look at things...............

Which is why I have said that knowledge allows a person to know when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em.

...

what do you think about the Visa Express program for Saudi Arabia pre 9/11? pretty convenient don't you think? or was it just a blunder? DELIBERATELY providing an EASIER entry into the United States from a country KNOWN for it's extremists and support of terrorism................pretty 'convenient' blunder for all the hijackers there anyway you look at it.

As mention before, government blunders are nothing new and I have seen my share of government blunders during decades of government service.

I think many are vulnerable to believing 'official' stories.....not because I think they are bad or crazy, but because they are 'normal' and trusting and want to believe those in charge can be trusted. People in power take advantage of this. EVERYONE is vulnerable to misinformation. stamping something official doesn't automatically confer credibility and trust for me. I have to look at EVERYTHING. Just because there are ALOT of wacko truthers doesn't mean we were told the truth about 9/11.

Looking at history, 9/11 Truthers themselves, have been victims of disinformation and misinformation, such as, turning off a transponder will make an aircraft invisible on radar. How many times have 9/11 Truthers thrown that piece of false information at their opposition?

As I have said many times before, the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft and we cannot expect enemy bomber crews to think that turning off their transponder will make them invisible to radar. After all, there are valid reasons why we have stealth aircraft. So here is another example of where knowledge comes on the playing field to set the record straight.

As I have said before i do not believe 9/11 was a Govt conspiracy....IMO very powerful higher ups with an ideology straight from the mouth of "God" according them helped in some form or fashion a

new Pearl Harbor' to gain public support for an Iraq invasion and a war on terrorism.........

What does it mean when someone says; "A new Pearl Harbor?"

Remember, the Japanese were going to attack the United States no matter what preparations were made. We were on alert in the Philippines right after the Pearl Harbor attack and still took a serious beating. Needless to say, the Germans were delighted that the United States was blasted into the war by the Japanese, especially to the delight of German U-boat crews who were placed under restrictions due to the fact that the United States had not yet entered into World War II.

...and at the very least, if it was 'only' an intelligence failure, it STILL warrants criminally negligent homicide charges because we have proof of foreknowledge, and people being warned. Somebody should have their a^^ kicked JUST for the Visa Express program which could hardly be JUST a blunder but would have required some reason to implement. What reason do you think the Visa Express for saudi's was begun?

I am very aware of the 'good old boy' mentality within government circles where it is difficult to punish certain government officials or on the other hand, they may just receive a slap on the wrist for an incident that would land a typical civilian in prison or fired from the job.

J. Edgar Hoover wasn't thrown into prison because he failed to warn President Roosevelt of Japanese intentions just prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and I don't expect members of the CIA and the FBI to be thrown into prison either because some things never change in government, however, the American people have the power to make changes, but who is willing to step forward to put those changes into action?

I might add that Hitler's blunders cost him the war, but allied blunders cost the lives of millions.

Edited October 25, 2012 by skyeagle409