Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Feb 11, 2017.
To be addressed later, patience grasshopper.
He just reads those conspiracy truther sites, they were going nuts 10 years ago, but most has died down.
Most of the stuff they write is pretty funny, phoney pictures, edited dialog, and dwelling on the mistaken eyewitness testimony.
20 people can see an event, and one of them, sees something different, as in all testimony.
So he pretends that one, is the right one.
How does it change the fact that it's a scam no matter what you or I believe its purpose was?
I'm not trying to tell you what you think or feel, what you say logically leads to that conclusion. Not for you of course, nothing will ever lead you to any conclusion other than that OCT is correct. Follow the bouncing ball if you care to or not:
1. The purpose of the 9/11 Commission:
"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks."
2. Clearly the 9/11 Commission did nothing of the kind in any legitimate way (see most of the 29 points I listed for reference).
3. An investigation that fails to perform such to the highest level of investigative standards and whose agenda is compromised by any factor (including the one YOU theorize) is worthless and its conclusions are equally worthless.
4. The official conspiracy theory is based mostly on the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.
5. As such the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission as published in the 9/11 Commission Report ("garbage" by your own description) are worthless.
6. You claim that the official conspiracy theory (which is worthless) is the best one there is.
How do you know it's the best one there is if it has no value? A good guess? The US government said so, so it must be the best?
These are all rhetorical questions, I don't care how you respond to any of this, you don't make any sense.
Every single one of the 29 points I listed is FACT, there's not one thing "phony" or "misleading" about any of it. But you can feel free to show otherwise. Just saying it's "phony" or "misleading" is not evidence that it is.
Claiming something is fact, and providing the evidence that makes it fact are two different things.
So far you have provided zero proof of anything.
Virtually all 29 points are sourced in this thread. Go through it (there are 14 pages) before you make false accusations. I could say the same about you, you haven't proven any of the 29 points are phony or misleading, just shooting your pathological denying hot air as usual.
In fact I'm hoping to meet with former Sen. Max Cleland around the end of this month. No guarantees though.
It's not my job to source your post,, Nor am I going to waste my time checking your claims that have already been proven false.
Dude, You are about 10 years too late.
No worries dude, I would never expect you to do any research OTOH I fully expect you to make baseless accusions.
Likewise, I've learned not to expect an answer from you regarding anything you post.
There has to be reason for it Bob. What do you think the reason was for all these lies, finger pointing, etc. It's a simple question. People don't make up lies and information for no reason.
Bob, in point 12. above it says Philip admitted that most or all of the 9/11 commission report relied on 3rd party elayed torture testimony, yet in point 13. it says 25% of the footnotes is relayed torture testimony? How does "all" or "most" equal 25%?
Hey Bob, the Commission report is 567 pages. I have a few questions. Since you believe that what Philip says above is fact, can you answer some questions?
1. Was chapter 12, What To Do? A global Strategy, based on torture testimony? Were the footnotes based on torture testimony? Those two sections took up pages 361 to 567.
2. Was chapter 11, Foresight and Hindsight, obtained from torture testimony? That chapter took up pages 339 though 361.
3. Was chapter 9, Heroism and Horror, obtained from torture testimony? That took up pages 278 through 324.
4. Was chapter 10, Wartime, obtained from torture testimony? That chapter took pages 325 through 360.
That's just some of the information in the report.
Does this "fact" mean Philip cannot be trusted?
Any thoughts on why the Commission in its report wrote 63 times that "we found no evidence" to support various elements of the OCT?
Have you read each one of those instances in context in the report?
An this is just a nitpick. The statement "we found no evidence" does NOT appear 63 times. I just searched the document.
"no evidence" appears 61 times.
Of the 61 appearances on "no evidence"
"we found no evidence" appears 8 times
"there is no evidence" appears 21 times
"we have found no evidence" appears 8 times
"we have seen no evidence" appears 2 times...
Example 3 (in response to the question of whether a hijacker used the cockpit jump seatfrom the outset of the flight):
Looks to me like they investigated certain questions or claims and found "no evidence to support them. What exactly is YOUR point about the "no evidence" instances?
Edit: I just reread your post:
Can you explain how stating they found no evidence of a hijacker sitting in the jump seat "supports" the "OCT"?
Just standard courtroom garble
Of course there has to be a reason. But speculating as to what the reason is is putting the cart before the horse. When someone commits murder the accused is prosecuted and could be found guilty based on the evidence even if no reason is ever known. It seems to me you’re trying to marginalize the fact that the 9/11 Commission and their report are scams or divert that fact. For what reason? To protect the criminals? Because what they did was a heinous crime amounting to complicity and treason.
Apples and oranges man you should be able to figure that one out for yourself if you really wanted to. The former is a fact taken from a Zelikow quote and the latter is strictly a calculation of the FOOTNOTE contents. Why would try to conflate the two facts? Just to try your damnedest to confuse?
See prior post if you’re still pretending confusion.
What do you think? Is that even a serious question?
So if Phillip can't be trusted, how can you trust he's telling the truth in points 12 and 13? Or are you talking his statements on blind faith?
I thought he couldn't be trusted?
Just because one can’t be trusted doesn’t mean everything that person says is a lie. I don’t see how or why Zelikow benefits by claiming all or most of the 9/11 Commission Report is based on torture testimony but he’s really lying. But let’s just suppose he’s lying about that and only 10% is for example. Any testimony extracted via torture is unreliable and could render an entire report unreliable as a result. I’m sure you know that and you’re still trying to create your shenanigan diversions.
No you don’t think that you KNOW the guy is a scummy weasel despite your phony pretenses.
Edit: What I meant to say is it’s a fact that he was quoted to have made that claim. Whether his claim is true or not is arguable.
Separate names with a comma.