Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Nightwatcher

What hit the Pentagon?

1,128 posts in this topic

Once we ascertain that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon there's not much of a conspiracy left, and debating over what angle the plane hit at is, frankly, trivial.

No, it really isn't. If it hit at an angle that differs from the official version, then there is no reason for the light posts to have been knocked down.

If that is the case, it presents a pretty big issue, not a trivial one at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it really isn't. If it hit at an angle that differs from the official version, then there is no reason for the light posts to have been knocked down.

If that is the case, it presents a pretty big issue, not a trivial one at all.

Explain to me how the government hypothetically changing the the mere angle the plane hit at could benefit some sort of hypothetical conspiracy and I'll get back to you.

Edited by Kacen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain to me how the government hypothetically changing the the mere angle the plane hit at could benefit some sort of hypothetical conspiracy and I'll get back to you.

I used the word "angle" in my last response because you had used it - I thought you knew what I meant, but apparently you don't.

A more appropriate word is the "approach" the plane took upon reaching the Pentagon. You could also call it the flights path if you like.

If the plane did not follow the path stated in the official version of events, then it never would have struck the light poles that were laying on the ground upon making impact with the Pentagon.

The plane could have struck the Pentagon in the same area while approaching from a path that differs from the one the government has told us it approached at.

This video explains it in more detail: National Security alert - Sensitive Information - All parts

In it, they talk with 13 credible witnesses who clearly describe the plane approaching the Pentagon from a path that does not match the government's version. If the path does not match the official version, then the light posts would not be on the ground as a result of the plane hitting them. It's a very relevant point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the word "angle" in my last response because you had used it - I thought you knew what I meant, but apparently you don't.

A more appropriate word is the "approach" the plane took upon reaching the Pentagon. You could also call it the flights path if you like.

If the plane did not follow the path stated in the official version of events, then it never would have struck the light poles that were laying on the ground upon making impact with the Pentagon.

The plane could have struck the Pentagon in the same area while approaching from a path that differs from the one the government has told us it approached at.

This video explains it in more detail: National Security alert - Sensitive Information - All parts

In it, they talk with 13 credible witnesses who clearly describe the plane approaching the Pentagon from a path that does not match the government's version. If the path does not match the official version, then the light posts would not be on the ground as a result of the plane hitting them. It's a very relevant point.

And still, how does that matter? What motive would the government have to change the official approach? What hypothetical conspiracy would it benefit?

Or is this just a thought experiment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And still, how does that matter? What motive would the government have to change the official approach? What hypothetical conspiracy would it benefit?

Or is this just a thought experiment?

It matters because if the flight path isn't what the government states it was, then the light poles couldn't have been knocked down by the plane. And if that is the case, it means the damage was staged. I've stated this a few times now.

It is not merely a thought experiment. If you watch the video I linked to (all of it), you will understand why Flight 77's flight path as stated by the government is something I am calling into question.

I can't make you watch the film though, so if you aren't going to, then you aren't going to have much of an idea as to why I am question the official version of Flight 77's approach to the Pentagon.

The link that follows is to the video if you decide to watch it at some point: National Security alert - Sensitive Information - All parts

Edited by Broken Arrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you stating that a plane flew into the building but explosives were also in the building...? A plane crashing would be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or nobody helped him get the light pole off his car.

That is a possibility. Unlike some I won't just dismiss it out of hand because I don't like it.

How about the fact the cab driver insists repeatedly that the accident did not occur where the photographs show his car?

I missed the part where I was arguing about that point or even care. But if I must comment, one of the symptoms of shock could explain it.

And what about the fact there were no scratches on the hood of the vehicle after this 200+ pound pole just smashed through it. As if that wouldn't leave any scratches, you would think two men trying to pull the thing out just might leave a scratch on the hood too. Instead, there are zero.

Again, I missed the part where I was arguing about that point or even care.

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the part where I was arguing about that point or even care. But if I must comment, one of the symptoms of shock could explain it.

Again, I missed the part where I was arguing about that point or even care.

You should care if you actually have an interest as to what really happened that day.

It's easy to pick apart the more outlandish questions/theories regarding 9/11, but when faced with questions that don't have good explanations, I notice those that buy everything about the governments version of events simply blow them off rather than confront them.

It's like the vans driven by Isrealis filled with explosives and found to be Mossad agents. It's a fact that this happened on 9/11, yet when the information is presented to those who believe the government they act like these people/vans are of no relevance.

It doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you stating that a plane flew into the building but explosives were also in the building...? A plane crashing would be enough.

Explosives could have been involved, but I'm not certain what made you make that statement. At the moment, I'm mainly focused on trying to understand how 13 eye witnesses clearly remember seeing the plane approach along a path that does not match the government's version of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like the vans driven by Isrealis filled with explosives and found to be Mossad agents. It's a fact that this happened on 9/11, yet when the information is presented to those who believe the government they act like these people/vans are of no relevance.

So, aside from it happening on Sept 11th, what facts can you bring to the table that actually show that there were explosives on the van or that they were Mossad agents?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, aside from it happening on Sept 11th, what facts can you bring to the table that actually show that there were explosives on the van or that they were Mossad agents?

The White Van

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?

ABC News

  • “Since their arrest, plenty of speculation has swirled about the case, and what the five men were doing that morning. Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives.”
  • “Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS, said federal authorities' interest in the case was heightened when some of the men's names were found in a search of a national intelligence database.”
  • “For the FBI, deciphering the truth from the five Israelis proved to be difficult. One of them, Paul Kurzberg, refused to take a lie-detector test for 10 weeks — then failed it, according to his lawyer. Another of his lawyers told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.”

The article also describes how the company the Israelis were working for, Urban Moving, were suspected to be a cover for an intelligence operation. The Israeli owner shut down the business rapidly and fled the U.S. before the FBI could complete their questioning – hardly the actions of an innocent man.

The same former counterterrorism officer above has stated, “There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11. Bear in mind that this was a political issue, not a law enforcement or intelligence issue. If somebody says we don't want the Israelis implicated in this - we know that they've been spying the hell out of us, we know that they possibly had information in advance of the attacks, but this would be a political nightmare to deal with.”

Regarding explosives in the Israeli’s van, this was reported by many major news networks – CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, WABC, NBC. The video

provides some examples. There was a retraction of the report made some hours later from at least one of these networks.

I do think the idea of a mural on the side of the van depicting the attack is unfounded and the recording this information was derived from is suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The White Van

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?

ABC News

  • “Since their arrest, plenty of speculation has swirled about the case, and what the five men were doing that morning. Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives.”
  • “Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS, said federal authorities' interest in the case was heightened when some of the men's names were found in a search of a national intelligence database.”
  • “For the FBI, deciphering the truth from the five Israelis proved to be difficult. One of them, Paul Kurzberg, refused to take a lie-detector test for 10 weeks — then failed it, according to his lawyer. Another of his lawyers told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.”

The article also describes how the company the Israelis were working for, Urban Moving, were suspected to be a cover for an intelligence operation. The Israeli owner shut down the business rapidly and fled the U.S. before the FBI could complete their questioning – hardly the actions of an innocent man.

While the article you provide does present an interesting perspective, I personally don't see anything that definitively identifies the Israelis as Mossad agents or operatives.

The following quotes are all frm the article you have linked to:

One reason for the shift, sources told ABCNEWS, was that the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.

Emphasis added. "May have been" is hardly conclusive.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS, said federal authorities' interest in the case was heightened when some of the men's names were found in a search of a national intelligence database.

Ok, their names were found in a "national intelligence database". Which database is never identified and what information that database contains about those men is never divulged or even alluded to. Does the fact that the names of some of these men show up in some unnamed database implicitly mean that they must be foreign intelligence operatives...?

According to Cannistraro, many people in the U.S. intelligence community believed that some of the men arrested were working for Israeli intelligence. Cannistraro said there was speculation as to whether Urban Moving had been "set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area, particularly in the New Jersey-New York area."

Emphasis added. Again, words like "believed" and "speculation" do not mean that there is proof of a connection.

Regarding explosives in the Israeli’s van, this was reported by many major news networks – CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, WABC, NBC. The video
provides some examples. There was a retraction of the report made some hours later from at least one of these networks.

Yes, there were retractions issued. At least one was issued 8 minutes after the alleged explosives were first reported:

SOURCE

Three arrested with van full of explosives

4:27:11 AM

Reports from New York are saying three people have been arrested with a van of explosives.

The van was stopped along the New Jersey turn-pike near the George Washington Bridge.

It was not clear why police stopped the van but when they did they found it was laden down with tonnes of explosives.

And then less than 8 minutes later:

SOURCE

Police confirm arrests but deny explosives find

4:34:43 AM

NYPD officers have confirmed the arrest of three men on the New Jersey turn-pike.

However officials denied any explosives were found in the van. Officials declined to say why exactly the men had been arrested.

There were also outright denials of any explosives being found:

New York Times

On CBS Tuesday night there was a report -- originated by its New York station, WCBS -- that a van filled with explosives had been found on the George Washington Bridge. Though men in a van were detained, the vehicle did not contain explosives. Still, CBS said the report was based on trusted sources and the station corrected it when it learned that the report was in dispute.

New York Daily News

During first-day coverage Tuesday, CBS anchor Dan Rather trumpeted an exclusive by WCBS-TV reporter Marcia Kramer, who told viewers that police had stopped a car carrying explosives under the George Washington Bridge. Rather said there were enough explosives "to do great damage" to the span.

But Tuesday night, Rather announced that "further checking on that story" showed other authorities knew nothing about it. "Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't," he added. Though no explosives were involved after all, Kramer noted in an update that the vehicle's occupants were detained.

Then there was New York CIty Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik who said in an interview on Sept 11th on CNN:

I just got a confirmation from the Chief of Detectives, he's reach out to the FBI. They have confirmed that someone has been stopped in New Jersey, three men in a van. However, there was no explosives in the van. All right. They're being held for questioning.

And there's this excerpt from the Bergen Record / New Jersey News, Sept. 12, 2001:

Five men detained as suspected conspirators

Wednesday, September 12, 2001

By PAULO LIMA

Staff Writer

About eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan's tallest skyscrapers, police in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to the blasts.

The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday. The Bergen County Police bomb squad X-rayed packages found inside the van but did not find any explosives, authorities said.

However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot.

"There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said.

Of course the die-hards will say that these are all part of the cover-up... :rolleyes:

I do think the idea of a mural on the side of the van depicting the attack is unfounded and the recording this information was derived from is suspect.

Agreed. I so far haven't been able to find anywhere else but Broken Arrow's post that alludes the alleged mural.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my only thing is that i have yet still to see a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, we've seen the WTC getting slammed by a plane endless times, theres no way that no camera didn't have a good shot of that huge plane flying and making moves that it shouldn't and couldn't be making, plus the government would of exploited the video of it just like they did on the Twin Towers to fuel the fire and to get the stupid Americans who instantly wanted Saddam Hussein's death to back them up, lmao...classic fail for America i must say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course the die-hards will say that these are all part of the cover-up... :rolleyes:

And the people that believe everything they are told to believe will roll their eyes at such reports.

Since this topic is to discuss the Pentagon though, I will start one about the vans with explosives in them later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the people that believe everything they are told to believe will roll their eyes at such reports.

And "true believers" such as yourself will go to great lengths to ignore anything that counters their beliefs, even going as far as fabricating parts of their stories - like saying the van "had a mural of the plane striking the Towers painted on its side" - to make it sound like they know more than they can prove they do.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And "true believers" such as yourself will go to great lengths to ignore anything that counters their beliefs, even going as far as fabricating parts of their stories - like saying the van "had a mural of the plane striking the Towers painted on its side" - to make it sound like they know more than they can prove they do.

I didn't fabricate that. It's from police radio transmissions. I'll look to see if I can find out more in regards to that clip with policemen talking about the mural on one of the vans. As of now, I haven't come across anything that suggests or tells me it is fake.

Whether the mural was on one of the vans or not though isn't the sticking point. The fact remains these vans were pulled over and were reported to have explosives in them. This was reported by outlets most consider credible (meaning they aren't from conspiracy based sources).

The vans were connected to a company known as "Urban Moving Systems", owned by Dominick Suter. On September 14th, Suter left the country and returned to Isreal, leaving the company to simply collapse.

I tend to find that this, along with other things about the vans and Isreali's who were detained and released to be relevant information. I would think anyone truly interested in the events of 9/11 would feel the same.

And in regards to ""true believers" such as yourself", what is that implying? Should I then refer to you as a "nonbeliever"?

I don't consider myself a "true believer", or a "truthist", or any of those other labels people have coined for those that don't believe the government's explanation for 9/11. All I am doing is reading about the information that is available, much that hasn't been widely reported on, and then asking questions to find out why. Since when has that become such a terrible thing for a person to do?

Whether you believe the government or not, it's pretty obvious they did not investigate the events of 9/11 all that deeply. They placed blame on someone and/or an organization within an hour of the attack and then ran with it. They didn't do a proper investigation into anything regarding who was responsible for 9/11.

Edited by Broken Arrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the article you provide does present an interesting perspective, I personally don't see anything that definitively identifies the Israelis as Mossad agents or operatives.

I agree there is nothing specifically stating “Mossad” though the references to “Israeli intelligence” are plentiful.

It is right to point out that inferences the Israeli company was cover for an intelligence operation are accompanied by the wording “may have” and “speculation”. As the Israeli owner fled the U.S. before the FBI could complete their questioning and as Vince Cannistraro explained an order to shut down the investigation came from the White House, it is not surprising that no solid evidence could be brought forward. These facts in themselves only further lead to support the possibility that it was indeed a cover company.

The reference to “believed” is contained in part of the sentence, “… people in the U.S. intelligence community believed that some of the men arrested were working for Israeli intelligence…” The U.S. intelligence community do not seem like a group for unfounded speculation, especially against their allies, and so this suggests that there was good reason to “believe” in the first place.

Of the database in which some of the Israelis’ names turned up, it is true that “intelligence database” could refer to either a database of intelligence assets or simply a database used by the intelligence services. But, I would question what sort of information would specifically mean that, “interest in the case was heightened”. It seems hardly likely to be a database of motoring offences or credit history now does it. Maybe an immigration database could be suggested though this is unconvincing as a serious cause for the heightened interest.

An area that is not in doubt is where the Israeli’s lawyer is reported to have stated, “he [Paul Kurzberg] had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country”. This is evidence that at least one of the Israelis did have a connection to Israeli intelligence. We can then assume that either Kurzberg had parted ways with Israeli intelligence or that his lawyer was covering, first for his failure of the lie-detector test and second for the fact his name had been found on the national intelligence database and the FBI had reason to believe he was an agent.

A further note, one of the lawyers, Steven Noah Gordon (I do not know if he is the same lawyer as above), also stated that the Israelis, “have nothing to do with the bombings”. The “bombings”? This is either a miswording by the lawyer or else he knows that something more than aircraft were involved.

Yes, there were retractions issued. At least one was issued 8 minutes after the alleged explosives were first reported:

All of the retractions state that no explosives were found, ie no evidence of explosives present at that point in time in the van. This leaves the question of where the original story came from as there is usually a spark of truth behind even inaccurate reporting. It would appear the answer can be found in the article you quoted: -

  • “Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said.”
  • “The Bergen County Police bomb squad X-rayed packages found inside the van but did not find any explosives, authorities said.”

None of the retractions dispute the above and as the statements are specific in detail it seems likely that these reports are factual. So it appears reasonable that stories suggesting there were, “enough explosives in the van to blow-up the George Washington bridge”, were expanded from the fact only that “bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives”.

One problem left then. Trained sniffer-dogs can detect a residual scent long after the physical source has been removed (well, removed by human standards that is). Though sniffer-dogs can be inaccurate, this is more usually found in the case that they miss something rather than that they smell something which is not there. Searching for the accuracy of sniffing-dogs I found the consensus to be that it is somewhere between 60-95%. There is therefore logically a 60-95% chance that explosives were transported in the van at some point in time.

All in all it is certainly clear that this whole issue should have been fully investigated and not, as the former CIA counterterrorism chief, Vince Cannistraro, said, turned into a “cover-up”.

And "true believers" such as yourself will go to great lengths to ignore anything that counters their beliefs, even going as far as fabricating parts of their stories - like saying the van "had a mural of the plane striking the Towers painted on its side" - to make it sound like they know more than they can prove they do.

Let’s not be too harsh – Broken Arrow did supply a link to the recording about the mural after all. It’s just that the recording is unsourced and the idea of the mural in the operation would seem rather overly provocative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The White Van

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?

ABC News

  • “Since their arrest, plenty of speculation has swirled about the case, and what the five men were doing that morning. Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives.”
  • “Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS, said federal authorities' interest in the case was heightened when some of the men's names were found in a search of a national intelligence database.”
  • “For the FBI, deciphering the truth from the five Israelis proved to be difficult. One of them, Paul Kurzberg, refused to take a lie-detector test for 10 weeks — then failed it, according to his lawyer. Another of his lawyers told us Kurzberg had been reluctant to take the test because he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.”

So, let's review the bullet points. We have swirling speculation, heightened interest, and a lie detector test. Not exactly the foundation of a solid, fact filled argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let's review the bullet points. We have swirling speculation, heightened interest, and a lie detector test. Not exactly the foundation of a solid, fact filled argument.

The fact is that whilst innocent citizens were being burnt alive, throwing themselves out of windows to become bloody smears on the pavement and being crushed to an unrecognisable pulp in the WTC collapses, those Israelis were described as: -

  • “congratulating one another”
  • “videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery”
  • “happy”
  • “jumping for joy”
  • “celebrating with high fives”

Doesn’t that make you angry?

Doesn’t that make you want to know what these men were doing in the U.S. through a full investigation with findings made public?

I never thought Americans were soft… maybe I was wrong… keep making excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn’t that make you angry?

Doesn’t that make you want to know what these men were doing in the U.S. through a full investigation with findings made public?

I never thought Americans were soft… maybe I was wrong… keep making excuses.

I take it that you are throwing in the towel in this discussion, since you are resorting to such a transparent emotional tactic?

Or are you truly advocating conducting research on such a serious topic with a vindictive mindset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it that you are throwing in the towel in this discussion, since you are resorting to such a transparent emotional tactic?

Or are you truly advocating conducting research on such a serious topic with a vindictive mindset?

I'd see it as you are the one throwing in the towel.

Q24 asks some very reasonable questions, and instead of answering them, you respond with the tactic quoted above.

Anyone that has a true interest in knowing what took place on 9/11 should question why these Isreali's were responding to such a horrific event in a celebratory manner.

Instead though, people with the mindset that the government couldn't possibly be involved in a cover up, avoid legitimate questions by attempting to mock and/or belittle those that ask them.

You won't even admit that the actions of these Isreali's on 9/11 is suspicious?

If there were people responding in such a manner to any other murder you can be damn sure the police would be investigating them. Instead, police begin investigating them and then the government orders them to quit the investigation just as it is getting under way.

None of that seems the least bit odd to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t that make you angry?

Doesn’t that make you want to know what these men were doing in the U.S. through a full investigation with findings made public?

I never thought Americans were soft… maybe I was wrong… keep making excuses.

I take it that you are throwing in the towel in this discussion, since you are resorting to such a transparent emotional tactic?

Or are you truly advocating conducting research on such a serious topic with a vindictive mindset?

I think Q24's mistake is saying americans are "soft" and to "keep making excuses". Saying things like that is rather inflamatory, although it doesn't compare to other things I've seen said, on both sides of the 9/11 debate. I must say, aquatus, I commend you for helping ensure that this is about as far as it goes in terms of the insults. Q24 is actually a fairly polite debater, even if he does at times go overboard with comments like the above (he's done it to me too; in his last comment in the other pentagon thread here, he questioned my mental competency, laugh :-)). But I agree with the rest, as well as with what Broken Arrow has to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd see it as you are the one throwing in the towel.

I wasn't aware I was part of the discussion.

Q24 asks some very reasonable questions, and instead of answering them, you respond with the tactic quoted above.

Actually, I was responding to his tactic.

Anyone that has a true interest in knowing what took place on 9/11 should question why these Isreali's were responding to such a horrific event in a celebratory manner.

Instead though, people with the mindset that the government couldn't possibly be involved in a cover up, avoid legitimate questions by attempting to mock and/or belittle those that ask them.

So, we agree then. People should not mock and belittle others, such as calling their courage into question, or trying to make it out as if they don't really care about the issue? We on the same page about that?

You won't even admit that the actions of these Isreali's on 9/11 is suspicious?

If there were people responding in such a manner to any other murder you can be damn sure the police would be investigating them. Instead, police begin investigating them and then the government orders them to quit the investigation just as it is getting under way.

None of that seems the least bit odd to you?

Not really, but then I understand the concept of multiple jurisdictions. Regardless, I'm not getting into this. I have little patience for CT topics. As long as people are being civil, arguing logically, and making discussion, I have no problems here. When people start getting inflamatorry, that's when I have to step in.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware I was part of the discussion.

Um, you just got done posting within it. At that point, you become part of the discussion.

Actually, I was responding to his tactic.

He asked questions. He made reasonable points. You did nothing other then question his motives instead of responding to the issue he presented.

Anytime someone who buys the government's version of events is presented with peculiar facts about that day, it seems they completely blow off the question(s) and/or issue.

So, we agree then. People should not mock and belittle others, such as calling their courage into question, or trying to make it out as if they don't really care about the issue? We on the same page about that?

Yes, we agree, but I'm not sure where the question comes into play about questioning one's courage. Where has that happened?

As far as caring about the issue, you still haven't addressed the celebratory actions taken by these Isreali's. Are you going to? If not, then I have to assume you don't care about it all that much. And if that is the case, I wonder why such peculiar behaviour by a group of people on 9/11 is something you would dismiss without thinking anything of it.

Not really, but then I understand the concept of multiple jurisdictions. Regardless, I'm not getting into this. I have little patience for CT topics. As long as people are being civil, arguing logically, and making discussion, I have no problems here. When people start getting inflamatorry, that's when I have to step in.

You aren't making sense. You always poke your nose into these topics, yet you claim you don't have patience for them? I think a more accurate assesment is that you have little patience for those who believe in conspiracies that you don't believe in.

You then state you aren't getting into this, yet you've already gotten "into" this. Nobody made any uncivil comments, so that doesn't make much sense either. Nothing inflamatory was said.

Anyhow, like most that can't fathom the government doing any wrong and/or covering something up, it seems you are willing to blow off the actions of these Isreali's as it relates to 9/11 and the fact that while police were just getting underway with an investigation as to what they were doing orders came from the White House to stop looking into their background and why they were present that day to celebrate the event - nothing fishy about that.

But anyhow, if that is your belief, it does not mean the rest of us that find it peculiar must stop discussing the relevance of it.

Edited by Broken Arrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, you just got done posting within it. At that point, you become part of the discussion.

No. One gets into the discussion when one actually talks about the topic.

He asked questions. He made reasonable points. You did nothing other then question his motives instead of responding to the issue he presented.

No. What I did (and you seem to be the only one here not getting this) was address his slip of the forum rules.

Yes, we agree, but I'm not sure where the question comes into play about questioning one's courage. Where has that happened?

When you refer to people not taking action because they are making excuses, that is calling their courage into question. That is considered inflammatory.

As far as caring about the issue, you still haven't addressed the celebratory actions taken by these Isreali's. Are you going to? If not, then I have to assume you don't care about it all that much.

Something that might help in your assumption is my outright declaration of not having a great deal of interest in this topic.

And if that is the case, I wonder why such peculiar behaviour by a group of people on 9/11 is something you would dismiss without thinking anything of it.

Your first mistake would be in thinking that it has been dismissed without any thought. This is not the first time this topic has been brought up.

The second would be in thinking that the cause of my dismissal is the peculiar behaviour of these people. My disinterest is actually caused by the peculiar behaviour of an entirely different set of people.

You aren't making sense. You always poke your nose into these topics, yet you claim you don't have patience for them?

You seriously can't figure it out?

Whenever I am addressing forum rule violations, I am doing what I am supposed to be doing as a moderator: keeping the discussion going by enforcing the forum rules. If you don't see me talking about the topic, but you do see me addressing a topic stopper, such as inflammatory remarks, I am not "poking my nose into the topic", I am moderating.

Now, when I actually talk about whatever the thread is about, when I address arguments of counters, at that point I am entering the discussion, and I am under the same obligation to follow the forum rules of discussion as anyone else. Indeed, if a forum violation occurs at the time, I would ask one of the other moderators to intervene, as my intervention would not only be a conflict of interest, it would also begin a tyrade of whining about moderator abuse.

I think a more accurate assesment is that you have little patience for those who believe in conspiracies that you don't believe in.

There we go with that peculiar behaviour again.

You then state you aren't getting into this, yet you've already gotten "into" this. Nobody made any uncivil comments, so that doesn't make much sense either. Nothing inflamatory was said.

Well, tell you what...being that I directly quoted what I was referring to, said specifically why it was inflammatory, and that someone else even pointed out to you why I intervened, I'm just going to leave it at that. If you have any further questions regarding this, please take it to PM, as per the forum rules. The subject of moderation is closed, now please get on back to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.