John Kerry is Questioned on 911 Theories

Originally posted by coven


A) more than likely you are right on this one


Coven Out

Please show me in that picture were the "danger is of destroying other things".

There is nothing left to destroy from that wall that is standing.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Again, he said "I think" after he said he "knew" there was damage to the outer wall and danger of destroying other things.

Why not just stick to the official story in response to the question?
All he had to say is it fell from damage to the outer wall and fire.

Why would he speculate on a controlled demolition if he did not "think" it was?

Why would he said I think instead of stating yeah it went down by demolition?

Why would he not speculate when the questioner asked him about it in the first place? Listen to the words the questioner is asking. He didn't just simply asked like "what is your view of WTC7's destruction Mr. Kerry?"

The way the question was asked is more of a leading question.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Since when do we called buildings WALLS?

I am sure they are about as good as your explanation of W saying he saw the first plan hit or Silverstein saying pull it...

You can't have it both ways.

When it works for you you insist on a purely LITERAL interpretation.

When it doesn't... The guy just misspoke or just talks that way.

Since when do we call firefighters "it"?

Since when do we say a TV was on in a hallway when there was no TV in the hall way?

Solid effort though.

Originally posted by Pootie


I am sure they are about as good as your explanation of W saying he saw the first plan hit or Silverstein saying pull it...

You can't have it both ways.

When it works for you you insist on a purely LITERAL interpretation.

When it doesn't... The guy just misspoke or just talks that way.

Since when do we call firefighters "it"?

Since when do we say a TV was on in a hallway when there was no TV in the hall way?

Solid effort though.

Yep, pretty much used by both sides doesn't it? In effort to press the agenda?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Yep, pretty much used by both sides doesn't it? In effort to press the agenda?

Fair enough. What exactly is your agenda? Seriously.

Mine is a release of the suppressed evidence so a new investigation can be conducted. That seems to be a reasonable and just agenda... one supported by many of the victims families, etc.

What is yours?

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie

What is yours?

I tend to make sure that what evidence is presented does not tend to be how shall we say misused.

Originally posted by deltaboy


Why would he said I think instead of stating yeah it went down by demolition?

Why would he not speculate when the questioner asked him about it in the first place? Listen to the words the questioner is asking. He didn't just simply asked like "what is your view of WTC7's destruction Mr. Kerry?"

The way the question was asked is more of a leading question.

Blame it on the questioner.

Why would you speculate on something so important? Why not just tell what you know or "think"?

Why would an elected official and no less a us senator and former presidential candidate speculate on controlled demolition and say "I think" and "controlled fashion" in the era of youtube knowing it would be played all over the world?.

Kerry could have just as easily said Im speculating. When you say "I think" that means you believe it to be true.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Yep, pretty much used by both sides doesn't it? In effort to press the agenda?

Is that how you justify your weak arguments? People on the "other side" do it too?

You should realize everything you suggest about what someone did or didn't mean is pure speculation. You can't possibly know either way, and you should stop pretending that you do.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Blame it on the questioner.

Why would you speculate on something so important? Why not just tell what you know or "think"?

Why would an elected official and no less a us senator and former presidential candidate speculate on controlled demolition and say "I think" and "controlled fashion" in the era of youtube knowing it would be played all over the world?.

Kerry could have just as easily said Im speculating. When you say "I think" that means you believe it to be true.

Yeah I would say that the questioner is also being considered. Ever heard of leading question? The way Kerry's response is thinking instead of stating the fact. He could have easily said it was a demolition, not thinking. Sounds like he was pondering about the question that the questioner presented...hmmm interesting.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Is that how you justify your weak arguments? People on the "other side" do it too?

You should realize everything you suggest about what someone did or didn't mean is pure speculation. You can't possibly know either way, and you should stop pretending that you do.

I don't justify it what you supposedly called weak arguments. Nor do I tend to pretend. Especially from you who called my theory about Osama Bin Laden video confession as crap. In fact you never did counter that. I guess that pretty much sums up my weak argument.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Yeah I would say that the questioner is also being considered. Ever heard of leading question? The way Kerry's response is thinking instead of stating the fact. He could have easily said it was a demolition, not thinking. Sounds like he was pondering about the question that the questioner presented...hmmm interesting.

You are really sounding illogical and desperate now.

Like I said he could just as easily said Im speculating or I dont know or thats an interesting question let me get back to you on that.

But he said " I think" meaning he had a definite opinion on what he was saying.

No one says "I think" when they are speculating.

Again your blaming the questioner.

Kerry is an Ivy league educated attorney. Do you really think he could be stumped so easily and not chose his words wisely?



[edit on 23-4-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by deltaboy
I don't justify it what you supposedly called weak arguments. Nor do I tend to pretend. Especially from you who called my theory about Osama Bin Laden video confession as crap. In fact you never did counter that. I guess that pretty much sums up my weak argument.

Wow. Should I ask how showing two obviously different profiles and just saying they're the same guy proves a damned thing, or should I link you to a page that explains what a non-sequitur is?

Do you at least admit you're just speculating every time you tell us what somebody meant, and that your speculations aren't worth a penny more than anyone else's?

Originally posted by etshrtslr

You are really sounding illogical and desperate now.

You can assumed whatever you want.

Like I said he could just as easily said Im speculating or I dont know or thats an interesting question let me get back to you on that.

But he said " I think" meaning he had a definite opinion on what he was saying.

No one says "I think" when they are speculating.

Like you said, he COULD easilly said I'm speculating or I don't know.

Pfffft, even I used the words "I think" to speculate. Its called pondering.

deltaboy

Let's get real here. You're arguing in a very misleading manner.

Let's face it, John Kerry is a very seasoned politician. He could have easily demurred and deflected the question, saying something to the effect of, "I have heard nothing about that topic and I really can't answer it".

Fact is, he addressed the question directly and responded by saying that he had been told WTC 7 was brought down in "a controlled manner." He put in the asterisks of "I think" etc., but the end result is, he answered the question and said it was a CD, to the best of his knowledge.

And that is nonsense about "the wall" he refers to as being that of one of the towers; he's clearly no idiot and is answering the question, which was specifically about bldg 7.

Argue semantics all you want, that was his response.

What is fascinating is that he did answer the question, apparently rather truthfully, but with his typical style of adding verbiage. He acknowledges the CD. Very impressive find.

As for the poster who mentioned his body language, it is very defensive, the arms crossed, and watch Teresa too, when she realizes where the question is heading, she turns and looks like she's ready to vomit.

When was this question asked? Is it recent, or from the 2004 campaign?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you at least admit you're just speculating every time you tell us what somebody meant, and that your speculations aren't worth a penny more than anyone else's?

I will admit it can be speculation as much as other people would speculate when interpretating a person's words. But then just don't call it crap ok?

Originally posted by deltaboy


Like you said, he COULD easilly said I'm speculating or I don't know.

Pfffft, even I used the words "I think" to speculate. Its called pondering.

Really?

I cant believe this is not the hottest topic on ATS

it would be easily but, over half (at least) figured out to ourselves the writing on the wall a while ago

and have moved on to focus attention on newer threats

first kerry sabotages his presidential hopes with the military comment

now he's got another problem and he's trying to bring the mainstream person into figuring out the deception since they are hearing the lies/manipulation from the horse's mouth BAD IDEA

kinda like when rummy said the plane in PA was shot down

[edit on 23-4-2007 by cpdaman]

Originally posted by deltaboy
I will admit it can be speculation as much as other people would speculate when interpretating a person's words. But then just don't call it crap ok?

I didn't call it crap. I didn't even bring up the OBL stuff, but honestly man, we disagree on that. There may be a slightly better match between the two when you line them up by profiles, but I still don't see anywhere near a perfect match, and you haven't proven anything. Saying you proved it is like me saying I proved the towers were demolished simply because I think they were, or that I proved that they were to me, and therefore it's proven to everyone. Do you see what I mean? Because I know what hard proof is, and you're leaving way too much room for personal judgment to say you've proven anything. I shouldn't have to make a judgment call if you've actually proven something.

Originally posted by cpdaman

I cant believe this is not the hottest topic on ATS

it would be easily but, over half (at least) figured out to ourselves the writing on the wall a while ago

and have moved on to focus attention on newer threats

[edit on 23-4-2007 by cpdaman]

I agree but we have never had a us senator and former presidential candidate say " I think" and "controlled fashion" in regards to building 7 in the same sentence.

The bottom line from his quote is that he thinks building 7 was a controlled demolition.

And thats big news coming from a us senator.

Originally posted by gottago

Let's get real here. You're arguing in a very misleading manner.

O really?

Let's face it, John Kerry is a very seasoned politician. He could have easily demurred and deflected the question, saying something to the effect of, "I have heard nothing about that topic and I really can't answer it".

Lets face it? You addressing this as if the truth was finally revealed, this ain't it. He could have, but since we can never tell what he should or could do.

Fact is, he addressed the question directly and responded by saying that he had been told WTC 7 was brought down in "a controlled manner." He put in the asterisks of "I think" etc., but the end result is, he answered the question and said it was a CD, to the best of his knowledge.

No...the question was more of a leading question then just asking him what he thought of the destruction of WTC7.

And that is nonsense about "the wall" he refers to as being that of one of the towers; he's clearly no idiot and is answering the question, which was specifically about bldg 7.

We could use the same argument about Larry's words "pull" and "it" with building or firefighters, now you pretty much understand the problem.

What is fascinating is that he did answer the question, apparently rather truthfully, but with his typical style of adding verbiage. He acknowledges the CD. Very impressive find.

As for the poster who mentioned his body language, it is very defensive, the arms crossed, and watch Teresa too, when she realizes where the question is heading, she turns and looks like she's ready to vomit.

When was this question asked? Is it recent, or from the 2004 campaign?

He acknowledges about the CD because of what information he absorbed provided by the questioner. If you want to used his body language as an excuse, look what he is doing when he says "I think that they....." its almost as if the saying, based on what the information you told me...I would say it I agreed with you too on the demolition."