Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Feb 11, 2017.
Still waiting to see what the scam is.
Where did I say he was a scummy weasel? Why are you again making things up about me? Didn't you recently whine about this?
Oh I see. We don't know that what he said is factual, just that it's a fact he said it. Funny you decided to clarify that.
So the 75% of the footnote references back to information in the report WEREN'T gotten from torture testimony? How can Philip say ALL of the report was from torture testimony then?
Tell you what Bob.
What is the implied meaning for the following points you posted here regarding Philip. Are these meant to show him as a trustworthy person or someone who may be shady? I would LOVE your opinion.
You didn’t you’re right my apologies. I should not be a hypocrite and assume anything about you, at least not on paper.
Nothing funny about it. I said virtually all 29 points are sourced or sourceable. I would assume you try to twist my posts to suit yours so I clarified it.
It was his claim not mine. Email him for an explanation. The 9/11 Commission Report speaks for itself in terms of the footnotes used to support the many claims. I understand much of the torture testimony was obtained 3rd party from a detainee who signed a “confession” he wasn’t allowed to read.
You're not making sense here Bob.
If the the above is only referring to the fact that he made that statement and nothing else, how does that support your claim that the commision report is a scam? Especially when you admit you don't know if the subject of the statement is true or not.
How can unsourced or unsourceable points be considered as facts?
Why? I don't need to email him for his reasoning. The two statements contradict one another and therefore are worthless.
All of this stuff has been laughed off the block years ago. I'm surprised someone still rants it.
They can’t unless they’re contextually connected in some manner to sourced or sourceable material.
I’m not surprised most of your posts consist of silly rants. With Gamolon I feel I can have an intelligent adult discussion for the most part. With you that’s quite rare.
How much context do you need for "we found no evidence"? How desperate must a man be to pretend it means something other than what it means?
Perhaps worthless to you. For me they reveal this guy’s mentality quite vividly not to mention the footnotes support at least 25% of his claim. That’s more than enough to render the entire 9/11 Commission Report worthless garbage.
Philip's history and record show he cannot be trusted to seek the truth. Philip's duty is to the PNAC gang that sponsor him. It is not to find the truth.
For the same reason that he’s fixated on Zelikow’s claim vs the actual significance that the report is supported by 3rd party torture testimony.
Are you telling me that in response to the question of whether a hijacker used the cockpit jump seat from the outset of the flight and the report stating that "We have found no evidence indicating that one of the hijack-ers, or anyone else, sat there on this flight", is evidence of something nefarious?
Please tell me you're kidding.
Of course it is. You pick and choose whatever suits your needs. Philip contradicts himself and is portrayed as an untrustworthy person in your 29 points, but you embrace his comments that support your views. Interesting.
Separate names with a comma.