by Witness 007 220 Replies latest jw experiences
bohm:
Isnt it a bit funny to first rig the WTC full of explosives, then use a high-energy weapon out of star-trek on the remains?
When's the last time a 110-story building was taken down by controlled demolition? Maybe you can explain to us how it might be done with minimal damage to the surrounding area.
You see people, we "truthers" (lol) only need to prove foreknowledge in one single instance. You debunkers need to debunk foreknowledge in DOZENS of situations.
Bohm, maybe you, or Leo, or one of the other scientists here can come up with a math formula to debunk former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds....
Related link about Sibel Edmonds here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-bin-laden-worked-for-us-until-911.html
Or this guy, who was sitting with Dick Cheney in his office for most of the time in question that "hijacked" planes were flying around on the morning of 911...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
How bout it?
Thank you for the clarification, dear, JWD (again, peace to you!). I must stand by my understanding (based on my sources: Ms. Bin Laden, the info I cited, and folks I know personally), that Saudi Arabia is MUCH more religiously strict and intolerant than Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan together. Seeing as the lion's share of those directly involved... and Osama Bin Laden himself... were Saudis (regardless of whether their citizenship status was intact)... and given Ms. Bin Laden's and various medias portrayal of Bin Laden's super-hyper-uber-religious mindset... as well as his family's continued financial support... along with that family's business relationships with the Bushes... well, I'm just sayin' it's very interesting that everyone was looked at BUT the Saudis.
And I don't mean the Saudi PEOPLE... or even the government, per se. I am meaning the "power" in that realm. The MONEY. The ones having the gold... and so contributing to the "rules". Because I know and have worked with many Muslims... from various countries, even the Far East... and not a one that know would have been involved in something like that. They are some of THE most peaceful, hospitable people I know... indeed, far more than many "christians" I know and work with (sorry, folks, but it's true). Particularly JWs, who won't even help their own... and hide themselves from their own flesh, in violation of the "fast" of JAH.
So, I am not taking issue with the PEOPLE of KSA... anymore than I would blame the PEOPLE of the U.S. for what I believe Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney (and, by default, Mr. Rumsfeld) were a huge part of.
Also, I did know it was called an "abaya" in KSA; I just forgot the exact term as I was posting and "burka" came to mind, so...
But again, thank you for your clarifications. If I offended you, I apologize - I did not mean to. Nor did I mean to insinuate that Saudi PEOPLE... or even Muslims... of ANY sect... are less than honorable people. I have not found that to be the case. I do think, though, that as with Pakistan... the government is not only unaware of quite a bit... but in denial as to what goes on in its own country and with SOME of its own people. BOTH (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), however, should be called upon to "do better" in that light.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
PS- this seems to be the pattern in your source material- to many 'well I think' and 'well I heard'.
Really designs? I just posted a link to an FBI translator's website whose life was threatened directly by John Ashcroft and whose testimony at the 911 Commission hearings was thrown out because of "State Secret Privilege". The same goes for Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta who was sitting in Cheney's office while he was being told every few minutes of the positions of the hijacked aircraft flying around. How is that "well I think" and "well I heard"?
There are 79 others, I believe, whose similar testimony was also thrown out in the interest of "National Security" and they were all given gag orders. Many of them worked in the Pentagon, war veterans who know what a rocket smells like, and told of how they smelled "cordite" and not jet fuel. That's not second-hand hearsay. That's on-site first hand testimony.
If I post them it will be called "spam" and dismissed.. or more likely, ignored.
Honest to god PS Ashcroft threatens to kill someone. Of course the aircraft was being tracked- all aircraft is tracked...and the rocket slamming into the Pentagon, ok. Now Cheney and Blackwater were totally scary people and did and do tremdous evil around the world and the CIA tortures people to this day. Its parsing at its finest I'll admit. I don't think any of us deny that there are large and powerful cartels who control large blocks of the financial world.
All countries have spy networks- they're called Embassies.
When's the last time a 110-story building was taken down by controlled demolition? Maybe you can explain to us how it might be done with minimal damage to the surrounding area.
Never, which make it a bit funny you claim to know exactly what it looks like....
As for the bit about insufficient energy... well duh. Lets try to make you demonstrate your point to me. Here is the fundamental question: What amount of potential energy was released by the towers falling to the ground?
I am just interested in a round number, in joules. notice you can assume the reason for falling was a nuclear blast, explosives, etc. i am just interested in the contribution from the potential energy alone.
Also notice any high-school student should be able to estimate the number quickly.
@PS:
Go back and listen to all of the testimony by Norman Mineta. Vice Chairman, Lee Hamilton, asks him about the order the President had given to shoot down planes that had been hijacked. They were tracking the plane coming into the Pentagon, and the young man coming in was asking if that order still stands (to shoot the plane down), and Cheney replied that it did. The orders couldn't be executed because the scrambled jets were still "10 minutes away" (as Normal stated in the video!!) when the plan hit the Pentagon.
You see people, we "truthers" (lol) only need to prove foreknowledge in one single instance. You debunkers need to debunk foreknowledge in DOZENS of situations.
That about sums it up. You have to come up with at least one instance of credible evidence. And you fail again and again because the "debunkers" are there to point out your logical mistakes, your misquotes (or in this case just hearing what you want to hear), and contradictory theories. And yes, we have to do it DOZENS of times because you keep coming up with stupid shit.
MeanMrMustard
That about sums it up. You have to come up with at least one instance of credible evidence. And you fail again and again because the "debunkers" are there to point out your logical mistakes, your misquotes (or in this case just hearing what you want to hear), and contradictory theories. And yes, we have to do it DOZENS of times because you keep coming up with stupid shit.
MeanMrMustard
Never sum things up too quickly.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860
Friday, July 22 2005 - 9/11 Commission
The Mineta Testimony: 9/11 Commission Exposed
When questioned about this, representatives at the National Archive stated that the video may have been lost because of a 'snafu'. Following is a brief summary of the scrubbed video along with links to recently obtained C-SPAN video.
Windows Media (1.81MB) / Real Media (1.83MB) / Quicktime (13.96MB)
Mineta responds to an opening question by Commissioner Hamilton about the events in the PEOC and an alleged shoot down order. He describes a conversation between Cheney and a young man:
Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"
Mineta explains that while he had not known it at the time, he had surmised that the standing order the young man asked about must have been a shoot down order. Hamilton, looking a bit confused, seeks clarification about which flight the conversation was regarding, and Mineta once again clarifies that it is the flight that hit the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. on September 11.
There was good reason for the quizzical expression on Hamilton's face. Secretary Mineta had thoroughly trashed previous accounts of the PEOC activities that had been published in the press.
In a CNN piece dated 9/11/02, the timing of events had been represented differently. According to CNN:
"After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down."
In the CNN piece Cheney aid Josh Bolton describes the same exchange between Cheney and the young man that Mineta did, but Bolton ties the exchange to "a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington". This is the official White House legend, the one adopted in the White House produced 9/11 Commission Report, the one exposed by Mineta.
Hamilton follows with a question about Flight 93:
Hamilton: "With respect to flight 93, what type of information were you and the Vice President receiving about that flight."
Mineta: "The only information we had at that point, was when it crashed."
Chairman Kean then stresses that the Secretary's time is limited. He moves to Commissioner Roemer, who, immediately prior to his questioning appears to be receiving counsel.
Windows Media (2.85MB) / Real Media (2.15MB) / Quicktime
Mineta responds to a condescending greeting by Commissioner Roemer by giving a timeline for when he arrived in the PEOC (9:20), and an estimate of when the conversation between the young man and the vice president occurred (9:25-26). Roemer paints a picture of chaos and conflicting decision making between the functioning of the Situation Room and the PEOC and proposes a confused scenario of how a shoot down order might have transpired, to which Mineta replies:
Mineta: "That would be speculation on my part as to what was happening on that day."
At this point Roemer appears to attempt to discredit Mineta and imply that he, like Rumsfeld, was "out of the loop":
Roemer: "I know. Because you had been conducting official business and I'm sure you were hurriedly on your way over there..."
Mineta: "As I was listening!"
Thwarted, Roemer then tries to clarify how the order played out.
Roemer: "Would your inference be that they scrambled the jets to shoot down the commercial airliner, it failed, and the commercial airliner then crashed into the Pentagon?"
Mineta: "I'm not sure that the aircraft that were scrambled to come up to the D.C. area...were under orders to shoot the airplane down..."
Mineta ultimately expressed the obvious, that the standing order was an open question only Cheney could answer. The fact that the 9/11 Commission Report discarded his testimony has never been explained. Secretary Mineta did not respond to an open letter addressed to him. It is not known whether the letter got past his spokesman Robert Johnson, who did not respond to multiple messages. It might be worth noting that Johnson was formerly the spokesman of Arizona Congressman Jon Kyl, who was meeting the morning of 9/11 with Porter Goss, Bob Graham and at the time Pakistan ISI Intelligence Chief Mahmood Ahmed. Ahmed was linked to the wiring of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.
If Mineta's testimony is to be taken into account, and there is no apparent reason why it should not be, questions about the timing of events the morning of 9/11 come into focus. Most obvious is, if the standing order given by the Vice President prior to the aircraft hitting the Pentagon was not a shoot down order, then what was it? Perhaps it was the danger of this question, and the danger that Cheney would have had to commit perjury to uphold the timeline reported in the mainstream press, that caused the Vice President to testify to the Commission along with the President in closed session, with no transcript, no witnesses, and no public accountability.
NEXT!
bohm: am just interested in a round number, in joules.
TWO. The Two Joules between my legs.
