9/11 truth movement topic

[madsen]

@Madsen -

There is no evidence that the fire dept was in on it... and it's not clear who he meant THEY were...

I wouldn't have expected him to slip up and tell the whole truth anyways.  This was a slip of the tongue.  He used the term PULL IT.

How can you tell what is a slip and what isn't?  I guess it's a slip when what he says supports my view, but not when it supports yours.

[madsen]

Controlled demolitions, inc.

I'm not hearing anything from the CDI people that contradicts my understanding of what "pull it" means. 

I noticed that Demolition expert #3, who speaks immediately after the CDI person, emphatically states that you would not use "pull" and "explosives" in the same sentence, and confirms again that cables are used when you "pull" a building. 

If you disagree, could you give me the specific quote please?

Okay, there's a cycle repeating here. You make an assertion, like that something doesn't make sense if we go with the conspiracy version of events. Now that is an extremely open comment. At this point I offer some alternative possibilities (they are only possibilities, speculation if you like) and off the back of that you ask me to go into more speculation. I have said before, I don't think it's constructive to go into speculation. I think in future I will limit myself to commenting merely that it could make sense.

  The security agency angle is your theory, but you don't want to discuss it?  It seems that you want to use it to get out of the issue of BBC involvement, but don't want to defend its implications. 

Regarding Silverstein, you are the one that has gone to extreme lengths to divine an exacting meaning of what he said based on subtleties of the language used. To me, it is and always has been clear that he meant 'demolish the building'. When other video shows people saying it sounded like a demolition, or 'the building's going to blow up' your tack completely changes and you're happy to shrug the whole thing off as a meaningless slip of the tongue.

Actually, I think it's most likely that both Silverstein and the policeman suffered meaningless slips of the tongue.  My reasoning is that 1)  I have had very similar slips of the tongue (and I wasn't even under the stress of being interviewed on television or standing near a burning building) and 2)  If we interpret Silverstein's and the policeman's statements literally (setting aside for the moment whether "pull it" means what people are saying it does), then the consequences are, simply put, massively implausible. 

The Silverstein interview was, AFAICT, not on live television, that is, it was recorded.  Your side has to maintain that he didn't realize he was confessing to probably the most horrible crime in history.  Furthermore, he was obviously ignorant of his confession even after the interview, otherwise surely Silverstein's NWO brethren would have intervened and destroyed the recording before it was aired.  In fact, apparently no one involved in the production of the program picked up on the meaning that is "clear" to you.  If they did, then they would have either have released the recording immediately and claimed the greatest scoop ever, or they would have deleted his words if they were involved in a coverup. 

Any comment on the Minetta material yet? How complex can it be? At least give me an inkling of what your thoughts are so far.

I've done a little bit of looking into Mineta's testimony and I'm not satisfied I have a handle on what happened.  There are contradictory timelines and it looks to be very hard to find corroborating evidence in order to verify which, if any, are correct.  I'm trying to be reasonably objective here---given what I know now, in my mind the inside job theory hasn't been ruled out.

Let me ask a dumb question though---what exactly is the implication of the video you linked to?  Is it that in the interview portion, Mineta basically supports a standdown order, while in the second part with Lee Hamilton, he states it was a shootdown order; therefore he changed his story, implying a coverup?  That's my conclusion, but it doesn't seem to make sense in light of some of the comments on the video.

[Elvis Oswald]

About the Cheney timeline - The timeline that Cheney gave Tim Russert on Sept 16, 2001 was different than the official timeline in the commission report.

The official timeline was taken from newsweek articles that were based on a whitehouse issued report.

They ignore Maneta's testimony.

The issue is whether or not Cheney was in the bunker before the Pentagon was hit.
He (Dick) seems to not know the timeline  - based on giving various and contradicting stories.

I'm sure it's easy to verify what time Maneta came and that time is supposed to be well before the Pentagon was hit.

The majority of the witnesses appear to back that up.

Cheney's recollection can not be trusted because he has told differing versions of the story.

In a court of law - Maneta's testimony would be assumed to be the truth.

Then, the issue is - what was the order?  Standdown or shootdown.

Now, when an airplane turns off it's transponder or goes off course or if it is thought to be hijacked... the STANDING ORDERS would be to intercept and either force a landing or shoot it down.
This plane did all three.
AND - it was in restricted airspace.  A 4th fact that would make it a standing order - SHOOT DOWN.

Of course - conveniently - in July 2001, that standing order was rescinded by the Secretary of Defense.  Any thing that would have meant a standing order to shoot down a plane would now have to be directly authorized by the Secretary.
And not only did that order happen two months before the attack... but on 9/11 Rummy was in a meeting and could not be disturbed.
And isn't it odd that after 9/11... they made a big deal about saying that the rules were changed to allow shootdowns without a direct order... in other words a "standing order" - that's a lie.  Fact is it was changed back.  Sort of like when they say that not making the taxcuts permanent would be raising taxes.

Now I will concede... that since the rules were changed in July 2001... it could be that Cheney issued an order to shoot down the plane.  However... if you want to argue that a soldier would repeatedly interrupt the VP (especially a hardass like Dick) to ask if a shootdown order still stands... after all that had happened that day... geez, if you want to argue that the soldier would have been worried about whether Cheney was sure about a shootdown under those conditions... then you may as well just go home because you just outed yourself as a DOD operative.

Seriously.  Tell your superiors that it's time to go ahead with the Able Danger stuff.  Hang a few low-level FBI people and let the headlines ring about that conspiracy and let the sheeple think they've gained something.  That'll put them back to sleep.
I know that Able Danger ties it to Iraq... and I know that won't make sense to informed people.  But if you need any help - let me know.  I can sew it up for ya.  It might even get McCain in the whitehouse.
Of course, I need money and safe passage to Amsterdam.

Look.  The fact is that there are holes in the official story.  Another fact is that the government over the years has lied about so many serious things like the Gulf of Tonkin, that they are not a credible witness.
The fact is that the official story is not correct based on the evidence.
Who really did it?  Why don't you ask the Israeli agents who were here to document the event... the ones who were video taping it and dancing for joy.

Whether Silverstein said pull and what that means is beside the point.  the fact is that the video taped evidence shows a controlled demolition and the only argument you or anyone else has with that is that the NIST has a "theory" on how the planes could have caused the collapse.  When in reality, they have a theory as to how the collapse could have been initiated by the plane crash.
They did have a pancake theory about how the collapse proceeded... but they later backed off of that.

As far as I can see - you are unwilling to see the truth because of a subconscious mental block placed there by your environment - like the kids who tell my daughter at school that Obama is a Muslm and that he will send more terrorists to attack America... or by a conscious effort - like the parents who would poison their children with lies like that.

[Elvis Oswald]

To everyone but Madsen...

Why did the government announce the release of a video tape from the Pentagon showing the plane... and give FOX news all day to tell people the tape was coming and to discuss over and over how this finally puts all the conspiracies to bed... and then show a tape that does not show the plane.

I'll tell you why - because I've had 100 people tell me since then that they had seen the tape showing the plane.  In fact they had only heard that the tape showed the plane.

I have to respect that kind of criminal genius. 

[madsen]

Now I will concede... that since the rules were changed in July 2001... it could be that Cheney issued an order to shoot down the plane.  However... if you want to argue that a soldier would repeatedly interrupt the VP (especially a hardass like Dick) to ask if a shootdown order still stands... after all that had happened that day... geez, if you want to argue that the soldier would have been worried about whether Cheney was sure about a shootdown under those conditions... then you may as well just go home because you just outed yourself as a DOD operative.

Seriously.  Tell your superiors that it's time to go ahead with the Able Danger stuff.  Hang a few low-level FBI people and let the headlines ring about that conspiracy and let the sheeple think they've gained something.  That'll put them back to sleep.
I know that Able Danger ties it to Iraq... and I know that won't make sense to informed people.  But if you need any help - let me know.  I can sew it up for ya.  It might even get McCain in the whitehouse.
Of course, I need money and safe passage to Amsterdam.

lol.  As I said above, I have drawn no conclusions about the Mineta matter.

Look.  The fact is that there are holes in the official story.  Another fact is that the government over the years has lied about so many serious things like the Gulf of Tonkin, that they are not a credible witness.
The fact is that the official story is not correct based on the evidence.
Who really did it?  Why don't you ask the Israeli agents who were here to document the event... the ones who were video taping it and dancing for joy.

I certainly don't doubt that there are holes in the official story.  I also understand that the government lies about lots of things.

As far as I can see - you are unwilling to see the truth because of a subconscious mental block placed there by your environment - like the kids who tell my daughter at school that Obama is a Muslm and that he will send more terrorists to attack America... or by a conscious effort - like the parents who would poison their children with lies like that.

Just FYI, I'm an Obama supporter, and I think if we USAians get another 4--8 years of Republican presidency (at least the kind we've had recently), the outlook here is not good.